> Notably, “potential” is nowhere on the scale. Many posts talk about hiring entry level engineers on their “potential,” but the term is seldom defined. Most pe

> Notably, “potential” is nowhere on the scale. Many posts talk about hiring entry level engineers on their “potential,” but the term is seldom defined. Most people use “potential” to describe a sense that, even though a candidate currently cannot be an autonomous engineer, someday in the future they could be. We did not attempt to predict the future for any of our candidates but rather evaluated them on what they presented through the interviews. Well... > Some of the qualities we looked for in our associates in particular were: > Resilience: Learning on the job is hard and we assumed that the associates would make mistakes and struggle through difficult concepts. We needed people who could endure these struggles and bounce back ready for the next challenge. > Willingness to learn and the initiative to do so: Clover would assist the Associates in their growth, and provide teachers and mentors to help along the way, but any incoming Associate would need to be responsible for their own growth. > Humility: This is an important trait for all Clover engineers, but we paid special attention to it in our Associates. They would have to learn from those around them, be respectful of others, and be able to take difficult feedback with grace. > ... > Deciding the technical skills to evaluate was a long process. We expected to teach our Associates most of the technical skills they would need to do their job, but we couldn’t accept candidates that were completely blank slates. It really sounds like this is measuring the candidate's "potential". I would argue they defined "potential" as "resilience, willingness to learn, and humility", which they feel is an atypical definition. (Personally, I think that's a decent set of criteria to look for in entry-level engineers.)