I think we can teach people how to hire. The way I would do it is three-part: 1. An exam. You literally take a test. This mostly takes care of the technical po

I think we can teach people how to hire. The way I would do it is three-part: 1. An exam. You literally take a test. This mostly takes care of the technical portion, evaluates your cognitive skills, IQ, EQ, whatever. The idea is to get a general idea of what you "know" and gives some baseline reference numbers. You could also do a "coding test" as part of the exam, but I would not lean too heavily on those as they are subjective too. You would need to look at the results to see where they were strong/weak, as for some roles it's fine to be weak one place and strong another. 2. A veteran/senior (or two) interviews the candidate, asking deep questions to probe into the person's actual experience - because experience is 1000% more important than "what you know". The way I do this is a "binary search" of questions both simple and very specific, and based on responses I get more general or more specific. I can very quickly discover how much real-world experience the person has this way. 3. An interview with the team. This is actually for the team, not the candidate. The team can see whether the candidate is a mesh for their particular culture. It's just as important that the candidate fits the team as whether they're capable of "performing". Within this system, you wouldn't ever do more than 5 rounds (3 on average), you get a mix of "impartial facts" (the exam) and "gut feeling", and you still have the human factor both evaluating the person's experience/responses and checking for culture fit.