[phendrenad2]

I think that staying employed as a software developer for 10+ years is a good indication of skill, far better than any random coding assignment.

Put another way, if someone has 10+ years of experience, in an ideal world there isn't much point in quizzing them on algorithms or giving them homework. They've done all of that before, passed, were promoted, etc. You can see that on their resume, and you can verify that with a few phonecalls.

Of course, in reality, you have to quiz everyone equally, and hire based on this objective metric, because even a whiff of non-objective hiring is dangerous.

[wiseowise]

> I think that staying employed as a software developer for 10+ years is a good indication of skill, far better than any random coding assignment.

As someone who has been doing interviews for as long as 2 years, wrong. I've seen at least 15 candidates that had 5-15 years of experience and we're complete shit. As in no redeemable qualities in terms of tech assignment.

[phendrenad2]

Survivorship bias, Goodhart's Law, etc.

[wiseowise]

?

[tester756]

>I think that staying employed as a software developer for 10+ years is a good indication of skill, far better than any random coding assignment.

I disagree.

Exp is nowhere close to being perfect proxy for skills