[marcosdumay]

The GP is still passing through hundreds of people, dozens of them capable, until he reaches somebody that convinces him of their competence. You were passed down because you weren't convincing enough.

Or maybe he is getting resumes from a channel that has been victim of machine-gun filling, and there indeed thousands of incompetent people posting resumes into every channel and just half a dozen real applicants.

TBF, I have no idea how to fix either one of those problems. Hiring is just completely broken.

[samr71]

I have only a resume to convince them. I have job experience at major companies, with examples of what I've built when there, personal projects I've made, a github link, a great GPA from a good school.

And I know similar Junior-mid people in the same boat. We can all do Fizzbuzz, we've all built things, and somehow we're not getting interviews, but people that can't do Fizzbuzz are.

Do thousands of incompetents also machine-gun apply to, say, mechanical engineering, accounting, marketing, HR, or finance gigs? Is it just tech?

Something isn't adding up.

[creer]

> Do thousands of incompetents also machine-gun apply

Enough that it's HR or some automated software that first screens your application.

> Something isn't adding up.

Yes. The pipeline "posting > application > screening" is now completely broken. In your case it's quite possible it's HR and screening software that your resume is not convincing. I have been hoping for anecdotes and studies in this direction (from people who have access to the HR and/or software screening and are inclined to report) - but it's at least not common. What we do hear from, is tons of people who can program and who are not getting even first interviews.

[firstplacelast]

Big companies and small need to agree on some standards and create qualifying exams that they will actually accept as proof of competence. Degrees somehow don't prove anything, experience doesn't, blah blah blah. It's exhausting to have to prove to interviewers that I'm not mentally disabled at every turn and it's a waste of time for everyone.

Create certifications that actually count for something and aren't just a blip on a resume that may tick a box, but will actually move you past technical trivia questions. I know some people have a deep repulsion to this and I think it would be fine to have a technical interview gauntlet for those that choose not to engage with any type of certification and a simplified interview format for those that have passed the prerequisite tests.

I don't care how long, rigorous, or ridiculous the tests are. Just agree on some effing standard.

[creer]

Watch out for what you ask for. Plenty of big vendors have certification programs. ... And for some combinations of field and vendor, they are red flags - rather than pre-validation. That is, far too many applicants have the certification but do not have the grounding knowledge without which the certification is sort of useless - potentially more dangerous than validating.

[firstplacelast]

That's exactly what I mean though, agree on something that actually means something. Not certs that are just a checkbox and you still get grilled bc many people don't believe they much value or others believe are a negative signal.

Develop something that actually has weight to it.

[wyclif]

Licensure. You're talking about licensure, not certifications. Other industries do it. Why doesn't software engineering?