I really really really want everyone who conducts interviews to read this: http://blog.interviewing.io/you-cant-fix-diversity-in-tech-without-fixing-the-techni

I really really really want everyone who conducts interviews to read this: http://blog.interviewing.io/you-cant-fix-diversity-in-tech-without-fixing-the-technical-interview/ http://blog.interviewing.io/you-cant-fix-diversity-in-tech-w... It's based on a decent sample size, and challenges a lot of assumptions about the consistency and quality of tech interviewing practices. In particular, the person you're talking about, who says they pass only about "50%" of interviews, is telling. Quote from article: As you can see, roughly 25% of interviewees are consistent in their performance, but the rest are all over the place. And over a third of people with a high mean (>=3) technical performance bombed at least one interview. This is not a problem of terrible horrible no-good very-bad "fake programmer" candidates who somehow held onto jobs for years. This is a problem of interviewers who are fundamentally incompetent to conduct interviews and evaluate candidates.