How else do you assess a potential employee? This is a critical (and very fair) question. That said, I'm not sure that the options you listed are the only one

How else do you assess a potential employee? This is a critical (and very fair) question. That said, I'm not sure that the options you listed are the only ones available. I'm not sure they're the best options, but I'm certainly not sure they're the worst, either. How does it work in other knowledge-intensive fields? Physicians don't have to answer questions about organic chemistry at the whiteboard whenever they change jobs, but then again, physicians are subject to an extremely rigorous and standardized academic and apprenticeship path, which results in a a government backed exclusive right to practice. Actuaries don't have to pass exams on calculus or linear algebra every time they change job, and they don't strictly have to major in math, but they do have to take a long series of difficult exams that cover calculus and linear algebra, along with more advanced mathematics (and other more regulatory issues), and they must gain certain types of work experience. There are many other models out there. I want to be sure I'm not coming off as endorsing any particular approach here. I do see some benefits to the current system - in theory, anyone who can study effectively and learn to do complex data structure and algorithm based problem solving at a whiteboard is welcome to take the google entrance exams. Or not. There's some good in that. However, I also believe that there may be more harm in it that our industry fully realizes. Personally, I would be willing to take actuary-style exams, or some kind of board exam, if it meant that I could create a study path, truly devote myself to it, be assured a transparent, fair, and consistent evaluation. For me, the tough part is that I have to re-load all of this into exam ready memory every time I interview, which can be unpredictable, and happens over and over (I wouldn't object to "refresher" exams either). I willingly acknowledge that what I described above is half-formed, and may have all kinds of problems I haven't anticipated. Personally, I do think that what we have is clearly driving some talented people away from our field, but it might also be attracting others. Hard to say. What I am sure about is that we must consider any claim of a "shortage" in the context of what I consider to be almost a kind of hazing every time people change jobs. The links I provided below (the JOS one) was eye opening, we really do lose people to our industry because of this. I don't have an answer, but I really do think we need to see this as a problem.