[ljm]

If two candidates are equal and the tie-breaker is that one ran a side project in their spare time, is that not an immediate disadvantage to the otherwise excellent, hireable candidate who didn't have that?

Meanwhile, if you ignore the side project, that candidate isn't disadvantaged as a result. They're just given the same consideration as the other candidate, not more and not less.

How you choose between the two at that point is perhaps more difficult, but the playing field is still level. The single parent still has a fighting chance against the person who has the time and money to do extra work for themselves.

[KallDrexx]

I think this is the wrong question, because candidates are never equal (mostly due to the number of variables involved).

The better question is if one candidate has a strong set of work experience but no side projects, and another candidate has an underwhelming set of work experience but a strong set of side projects, does one get valued over the other or are they given equal weight?

If they aren't given equal weight, do you understand the reasoning why (or is it just because they think side projects are cool and want people like themselves).

[carnitine]

This is just impossible to do, the side projects are on the CV and will influence any decision, it’s not feasible to ignore them. Of course being less accomplished is a disadvantage.

[HeyLaughingBoy]

You could make the same argument about any other aspect of their resume. The reality is that candidates are never exactly the same "except for this one thing." What if one candidate gets to do side projects as part of their job? Should you ignore that?