[danaris]

> Your guess that ~24/200 will be "good enough" is unfortunately wrong in my experience. In my last go, only 10/200 were able to demonstrate sufficient knowledge of the required skills to be hireable, and by that I mean fulfill the needs of the role in a way that justifies their salary, rather than be so inexperienced as to be a drain on resources rather than net gain.

I mean, this is fundamentally dependent on the specific position being hired for.

[komali2]

I'm interested in this conversation however this comment doesn't really mean anything to me. What are you saying? And so, how would you hire? If you just wanted to say, "hiring sucks," I agree. Hiring sucks.

[danaris]

This comment is saying "the percentage of any given 200 programmers applying for a job that are, in the end, reasonably fit to do the job depends on the job being applied for".

If the job is a mid-level C++ programmer job at an insurance company, many more of them are likely to be good fits than if it's a senior embedded systems architect job at an aerospace firm.