Thanks for the context. > But yes, if the candidate fails Fizzbuzz then it's probably pointless to continue the interview. I didn't really mean to imply that

Thanks for the context. > But yes, if the candidate fails Fizzbuzz then it's probably pointless to continue the interview. I didn't really mean to imply that basic programming skills are not a prerequisite for a programming job, which I guess is what the second quote of mine above seems to imply. What I'm saying is that testing itself shapes the type of candidates you'll get, not just in the way that testing is meant to (i.e. screening out the ones that are not qualified) but also in other, unintended ways. If the first thing you do in your interview is check if I can pass FizzBuzz, what does that say to me about your company? Tests like fizzbuzz are so uninspiring and uncreative. Aside from the fact that some strong candidates may just blank on them even though they can program fine, the deeper issue is that testing in this way says to me as an interviewee that you see candidates in terms of black-and-white "testable" skills.