[kingdomcome50]

I think There is a fundamental mismatch between the signal an interview can provide and the requirements necessary to be successful on the job.

You see and interview is like a “test” or a “pop quiz” where the day to day is more like “homework”. That is, you want to hire people who do their homework, but the only reasonable method to evaluate a candidate is to give them a test. And while a “high test score” may serve as a proxy for “completes homework”, as we all know, it’s far from perfect.

The unfortunate reality is that the best process for determining the quality of a candidate benefits neither the candidate nor the company. That is some sort of paid-trial-period-type arrangement to evaluate fit.

So we are left with these gauntlets of an interview process because it kind of splits the baby…

[angarg12]

I've seen this idea of trial periods floated around a bit.

My honest question is, how do you run this at big tech scale? Honestly, we get dozens if not hundreds of applicants per opening. Are we going to give all of them a trial? If not, how do we choose which ones? Again we are back at square 1.