5 ms·
The cost to an employer of a false positive (hiring someone unqualified) is probably 1-2 orders of magnitude higher than the downside of missing an actually-goo
by smallnamespace 9y ago
The cost to an employer of a false positive (hiring someone unqualified) is probably 1-2 orders of magnitude higher than the downside of missing an actually-good coder who can't pass a WBI.
Not only does it take a lot of time and bandwidth to fire someone incompetent, but now you have to deal with the damage they've done to your codebase and projects in the meantime.
Even if your WBI process rejects 10 good coders for every bad coder it weeds out, you're coming out ahead.
As for all these posts from famous or well-known hackers who assert that they don't need to show that they know their stuff -- sure, if you have a portfolio of open source projects that everyone uses, then you have the luxury of not needing to demonstrate your technical competence.
How does that help employers evaluate anyone else?
- kthejoker2 9y agoThis sounds more like a structural problem. 1) All new employees go on 90 day contract-to-hire. So reduce the firing overhead to 0. 2) Similarly, just build some sort of extra ring of QA around new hire code, so all their codebase changes get reviewed by a peer -specifically to assess their long-term employment at the company.- That 10:1 ratio's not set in stone.