[jasode]

>A brick layer isn't asked to build a wall prior to getting a job. A certificate confirming he did learn the job is enough for companies to employ them.

It depends. A welder looking for a job -- even with a certification -- will often have to demonstrate his welding skill to the jobsite supervisor before he is hired. An airline pilot -- even with a rank of "captain" with 5000+ hours -- when trying to find employment with another airline, will still have to demonstrate piloting skills with a "check ride" as part of the hiring approval process. Sometimes, experienced pilots fail the check ride for whatever reason.

The common theme is that "existing credentials" is sometimes not enough.

[sarchertech]

In both of those cases they are actual work sample tests. A pilot is expected to demonstrate exactly what they do on the job every day. They don’t need to practice for interviews.

Those kinds of demonstrations are also very for professional jobs outside of hiring new grads.

And even in the trades it isn’t common.

[jasode]

>A pilot is expected to demonstrate exactly what they do on the job every day. They don’t need to practice for interviews.

Airline pilots that were laid off and are trying to find employment with another airline do study airmanship in preparation for interviews with another airline. Especially if the pilot is not type rated for the particular airplanes the other airline flies. E.g. the experienced pilot currently is rated for Airbus A320 but the airline he's applying only flies Boeing 747. The pilot studies because he wants to stand out from other candidates so the prospective airline wants to hire him and willingly pays for ongoing 747 training. Yes, the airline interview and check rides with the flight instructor are stressful because they can still fail even though they have 1000s of hours of existing flight experience.

[sarchertech]

> Especially if the pilot is not type rated for the particular airplanes the other airline flies. E.g. the experienced pilot currently is rated for Airbus A320 but the airline he's applying only flies Boeing 747.

That makes sense then because they are applying for a slightly different job.

It would make sense for a Java programmer to spend time prepping for a Python interview as well.

[mock-possum]

Languages are not monoliths though - a Java programmer might spend ten years focusing on one area of development, invested in one particular library or framework, or specific to one particular device - and then might spend time prepping for something different, still solely using Java.

In short - unless you really are just moving to ‘same job different company,’ not just same title, but same actual work - you’re gonna need to brush up while you’re trying to find your next gig. It helps you stay engaged with your profession, anyway.

[sarchertech]

Replace language with framework. The analogy works just ask well.

In programming you can apply to the same type of job using the same language, the same teamwork, in the same domain with 20 years experience and you’d still be expected to spend time practicing for a test that has almost nothing to do with your day to day work.

I don’t know anyone who spends time prepping for the work they plan on doing at the job they are interviewing for. They just brush up on leet code, or language syntax if they are interviewing for a place that uses a different language or framework share than they normally use.

[MontyCarloHall]

>In both of those cases they are actual work sample tests. A pilot is expected to demonstrate exactly what they do on the job every day. They don’t need to practice for interviews.

The example in the post (sum all even numbers in a list) is a perfect example of something programers do on the job every day. It's not leetcode puzzle bullshit; filtering and aggregating lists is an extremely frequent task in software, and no competent programmer should have to study to perform it.

[sarchertech]

I didn’t read the twitter blurb in the article where is mentions the test.

I was basing this on the 30 minute live coding session the author talked about.

Yeah that screening is simpler than fizzbuzz. I also think it’s a worthless test and I believe the tweet is extremely misleading.

I’ve been doing this for a long time and if you exclude candidates that fail the most basic resume screen, I would be surprised if 10% failed that test.

If you filter for only senior candidates with verifiable experience, I’d be surprised if more than 1% failed it.

If 75% of the candidates that get through to your coding screen fail that something is extremely wrong with your hiring process.

[rockemsockem]

> And even in the trades it isn’t common.

Source???

I'm definitely aware of welders and machinists having to show the quality of their work for interviews.

You might not think that basic coding/algorithms problems are good tests of actual performance, but being able to solve a problem, talk about your approach, debug issues when they come up, and then discuss expanding the solution in prod including trade-offs is actually a really great indicator of future performance in my experience.

[rockemsockem]

So much this.

Some people so often say that credentialing helps all these industries that they know nothing about, when in fact the norm or high-performing end of those industries do the exact same thing.