1. is not always true nor is it germane to the question at hand. 2. is a highly unlikely scenario. Ecosystems are complex beasts at face value. Generally spea

1. is not always true nor is it germane to the question at hand. 2. is a highly unlikely scenario. Ecosystems are complex beasts at face value. Generally speaking the decision-makers stick close to the trajectory of their comfort zones. You've packed a lot of opinionated assumptions here that I'll pass on biting. 3. HR has dissolved in the past decade or so. You are lucky if there is a HUMAN aspect to HR (it can be, far too often, a keyword parsing exercise) AND when there is a HUMAN involved it may be someone poorly paid from an outsourcing country that has NO IDEA of what the two puzzle pieces should look like to match them. 4.) Candidates are more likely to never have encountered computer science, software, design, or tooling fundamentals. Non-exposure is different from belligerence. Job descriptions are often riddled with 50 to 100 keyword requirements - full-stack can always be trumped by entire global ecosystem requirements. So why is it surprising that candidates must list EVERYTHING they've encountered? Given that sweeping employer wishlist survey of technology, it is then cruel and unusual to expect candidates to be able to 'test' well against those oceans of domain knowledge. And let's be honest. Candidates are tested against a mountain of brain-teasing trivia and nuances gleaned from innumerable web resources dedicated to "weeding out" - cough - unqualified candidates. We need to get back to hiring based on mutual interest, mutual technology skillsets, and behavioral stability. If a candidate has everything then they won't grow in the job - bad fit. If they express interest in your direction - you have a candidate worth considering. Limit the total number of interviews to seven - no bullshit, pare down to three, pick your best. Give it six months. Rinse and repeat if necessary.