Another article with content that I agree with (high level points) and at the same time disagree with (reasons supporting said points). The industry is rife wi

Another article with content that I agree with (high level points) and at the same time disagree with (reasons supporting said points). The industry is rife with credentialism--but it's more due to the extremely self-centered approach developers use. I don't mean self-centered as a colloquialism for "arrogant," I mean it as in they tend to hire people who resemble themselves (i.e. their skillsets) rather than who is best for the job. And the credentialism changes in different regions/tiers of tech companies. That's why FAANG tend to target elite private school grads, and why line-of-business shops tend to target Programmer/Analyst III types. There are gatekeeping algorithms in resume filters that lead to a sort of hivemind in the community. On the other hand, a ratio of 5:10,000 could just as likely indicate a poorly presented resume as bad algorithms. Interview questions are problematic. The author has a big miss on the rest, though. Asking a person to implement Japanese Go (or anything, really, for which it is applicable) with flood-fill is exactly the same as asking them what a closure in Java is. It's just a pig with lipstick on. And that is a problem, of course. And completely omitted: the criteria that establish just what progress toward a solution counts as acceptable at a given level. Education is inaccessible, probably the only point of the author's I can't really quibble with too much. Companies are being exceptionally short-sighted here, and doing themselves a disservice. Can't argue with the last bit about pay and benefits, either, really. It gets better the higher tier of company one goes to, but even at FAANG engineers are undercompensated (though arguably perhaps not suffering from poor benefits).