[polalavik]

I still feel like interviews are entirely weird for everyone involved. It's not a real reflection of somebody's performance. Perhaps some people cannot work well with someone watching them think. I'm one of those people. I get a lot done at my job, but I need time to mull things over and sit with things in order to come to something that makes sense. Interviews only reward 1 of 2 things: people that are fast, efficient thinkers (this is good) and people that have very good social skills and can convince you of something they are not.

People who cannot perform socially or technically on the spot in a completely unnatural setup are sort of left in the dust. I'm not sure i have a solution other than throwing out technical interviews and actually trusting peoples prior work. I have work in the public (published academic papers, patents) but none of that seems to mean anything in an interview lol. Its only about can you perform right here right now for 1-4 hours.

I've said it on other threads. (1) trust peoples past employment, use background checks or something to make sure they actually worked where they said they have worked (2) look at their body of public work if they have any (3) just hire the people that look good off those two metrics and youll probably end up with a good employe 90% of the time and save countless hours and dollars. I'm almost convinced random choice + team vetting of resumes + a little background check would be just as effective as endless technical interviews.