People tend to hire, not so much the best people they can find, but the people who are most like themselves. And if you hire people like yourself, and your job

People tend to hire, not so much the best people they can find, but the people who are most like themselves. And if you hire people like yourself, and your job ad says "We hire the smartest people," then you must be the smartest people! I've found it to be a huge negative signal. These sorts of interviews seem to mostly be about developers patting themselves on the back about how they stumped the applicants in interviews. I think we need to have the talk about the "hire the smartest developers" meme in our industry like the web hosting industry talks about five 9s of uptime. The first nine is writing FizzBuzz. The second nine is being able to design and maintain large systems. The third nine is knowing the finer points of Prim's and Dijkstra's and a copy of TAOCP with arbitrary dust coating on the shelf. Do you really need talent that meets a higher standard than that? Maybe if you are Google or NASA. But if you are not launching things into space, you don't need to hire the world's smartest people. Certainly, there is a spectrum between 'we write CRUD software' vs 'we read journals and do some novel algorithms work', and a company in the second category will want to say something positive about the intelligence of their employees as a signal. But "we hire the smartest people" is absolutely the wrong thing to say. "Smarter" is not even better once you've hit the threshold of "acceptable number of nines to write this program." I routinely pass over hiring extremely smart people. Some of them have abrasive personalities, or are the wrong cultural fit, or are not interested in the problem domain, etc.