Every time I read one of these articles, the author invariably ends up recommending solutions that have glaring holes, just as large as the ones he spends the e

Every time I read one of these articles, the author invariably ends up recommending solutions that have glaring holes, just as large as the ones he spends the entire time attacking. In this case, the author begins the entire essay by telling us that we shouldn't hire on the basis of what someone already knows. One of his first solutions later presented is the exact opposite of this: find out about their level of existing knowledge, regarding specific technologies and frameworks. He then goes on to rile against "team fit," because of its potential for bias. But his entire solution basically comes down to behavioral interviews, which are notorious for how bias-prone they are. His solution basically tells us that we shouldn't consider fancy degrees or companies. And yet, in the span of 30-60 minutes, we should be able to form accurate judgement on how much talent and drive someone has, and what they will be able to do in the next 3 years? Sorry, but unless you're the Steve Jobs of character reading, there's no way you can do the above accurately. Everyone lies on interviews. They pad their accomplishments, and inflate what they have previously done. The only thing you achieve through such a discussion, is figuring out how good a talker someone is. The following article sums up everything that is wrong with almost every "Hiring is Broken" critique ever. Every single approach people have ever thought up, is broken in so many ways, as ably demonstrated by many others. Unless someone has hard data to show why one technique's pros outweigh its cons, such discussions are almost always pointless. http://www.thecaucus.net/#/content/caucus/tech_blog/684 http://www.thecaucus.net/#/content/caucus/tech_blog/684