3 ms·

I understand the need for Resume accuracy in key roles. We all know the people with spotless resumes, who get jobs they don’t deserve, and perform abysmally, a

I understand the need for Resume accuracy in key roles. We all know the people with spotless resumes, who get jobs they don’t deserve, and perform abysmally, and sometimes alienate whole departments—middle managers in dockers. Or, the run of the mill worker whom just does the bare minimum, and counts on that bloated resume as a life saver. If I had a company, many jobs would be based on test results. It would take nepotism, preconceived notions, liars, out of the hiring process. Of course, many jobs could not be filled this way. I don’t know why companies try out local applicants for a couple of weeks, and if they preform, make it permeant. “ Employer, “You did well on our tests. Could come here for a couple of weeks, and we will see how you do? It would give the diamonds in the rough, minorities, and guys whom didn’t go to the four year party, a chance, and company might gain a productive worker?

belval 6y ago
You do understand that there is a very real non-hypothetical cost to doing something like that right? Each of these people needs to be paid, added to payroll by our HR, shadowed by a more experienced dev to give them a chance to ramp up. If you hired 5+ devs that are potentially "diamonds in the rough" you need to have IT give them their hardware and do the onboarding. In hiring it's always quality over quantity and absolutely not the opposite because of precisely this reason. Another fallacy is basing your hiring on test results. This is silly because you also discriminate by assuming everyone has time to do a take home test which is certainly not the case. If you meant a quick test in-office then there is no way you can get deep enough insight for it to be worth your time.