[koliber]

Sometimes you can pay someone who has done this before, and you're both happy. The person is happy that their experience helps them get a job. The company is happy that you get someone with the needed experience.

If I want to hire a driver, I can train someone who does not know how to drive, or hire someone who has experience as a driver. I can do either, but I'd prefer to do the latter in most cases.

[SoftTalker]

But now you're dealing with a hundred applicants who claim to know how to drive, but actually don't. Either because they never learned, or they aren't capable of it.

[koliber]

That's why a screening is needed. If people lie, it won't make me lower my standards.

I'm dealing with this all the time in recruitment. It can be done. People lie all the time or don't read the requirements. You need a way for the ones who really do know how to do the thing you need to demonstrate it to you.

Have you ever been in a situation where you had to hire someone to help you with something? Would you really follow your own advice? Your advice does not make sense for carpenters, cooks, or drivers. Why should it make sense for programmers?

[SoftTalker]

Fortunately whenever I have been involved in hiring, it was someone we knew was qualified or had references from people we trusted.

Years ago, I hired people at closer to entry level. If they had experience that was a bonus but if they didn't we trained them. If they didn't respond to the training, they were let go after a probationary period.

[koliber]

Yeah, hiring at entry level is great, because there are so many things that you don't need to check. It's WYSYWIG - what you see is what you get.