[GolfyMcG]

We hired a dev that's very much like you described. We "knew" he was smart because he did well in some Hackathons. Had built some cool projects on his flashy portfolio. Went to the same university we want to, which is a top university in the world. Had good grades at said University. etc.

He had all the markings of being a fantastic intern for us.

About half way through his internship we had to fire him. He lacked the attention span for a long term, rigorous software development project. We later hired someone whom we evaluated very differently and it has been incredible. He's doing a fantastic job. Constantly questions our opinions about software and pushes the boundaries of our depth of understanding.

To add to this, we knew the fired intern went on to another startup to keep doing whatever it is he thinks he's doing. The founders of that company ended up telling us the same exact problems were happening with them. Don't worry about these "hackers" and what they're doing. They'll all end up getting a reality check at some point. If they frustrate you, then just remember that the best revenge is living well.

[yoklov]

FWIW, In the games industry it's fairly common practice to totally ignore anything a potential programmer made in a game jam (unless they carried it on afterwards).

Feels somewhat equivalent, even though it's probably for different reasons.

[kevinwang]

Why is it that it's common practice to ignore anything made in a game jam?

[yoklov]

What ryanthejuggler said is true (and mainly why even impressive ones aren't worth much), but mainly because game jam projects are usually unimpressive and made of gluing a bunch of things together.

Totally ignore is probably stronger than I mean, I take a look, but I don't think it's ever strongly effected my decision.

I also can't speak for the entire industry, this is just what I've seen where I've worked.

[ryanthejuggler]

Considering "he lacked the attention span" in GolfyMcG's comment, it shows the dev can create, but doesn't demonstrate any long-term follow-through or team dynamics.

[nmb]

How did you evaluate the other person?

[GolfyMcG]

Sorry for the lack of reply.

We started by assuming most of what we saw on paper lack credibility. We questioned their abilities, in a friendly way, and made sure they proved to us what they claimed. We also cast a wide net - we didn't just assume because we liked someone at first that we should just wrap things up. That candidate was the best of maybe 3-4 people we brought in for in-person interviews. Instead of 1 intern candidate whom we felt we knew.

[iheartramen]

This is so true. Steadily working on a long-term project is so much more valuable than writing shitty code that you won't look at again for 24 hours every few weekends.