[andrewstuart]

The problem is that companies won't employ anyone who isn't perfect. They don't believe anyone is capable of learning, and if they do think someone is capable of learning, they don't want to be "paying them to learn". If you haven't worked at a company that looks exactly like this one, working on exactly the same technologies and processes then you are rejected.

[ihadaquestion]

I can tell you from personal experience that very large companies, especially the ones that are no longer perceived as hot as they once were, have a rather low bar of entry. I can see however why a small business would want to be very cautious though. Say you're a 9 person business, the 10th guy you hire is going to determine 10% of the company's success. You want to make sure you don't screw up on that. It's a fine balance, right?

Is your opinion that startups these days are on the excessively cautious end? Would hiring more openly for a trial position and firing fast be a better approach?

[andrewstuart]

The question is, wait six to nine months, have no-one in the job and don't get that stuff done, or recruit a smart person now who needs to learn stuff? Hire smart people with good fundamentals of computer science who have a proven willingness and ability to learn.

[ihadaquestion]

It's a good point. The only case I can think of where you wouldn't want that is if you don't even know if you'll have enough runway in 9 months, but that's probably not quite hiring stage.

[dbecker]

Employers are cautious, in part, because working with bad programmers sucks.

Their bugs slow down the whole project... and good programmers resent working with someone who doesn't pull their weight.

In many cases, it's better to let a position go unfilled than to fill it with the wrong person.