4 ms·
I think you're seriously missing the point. The point is not "employees for company X are all awesome!", but rather "company X is a good filter". This is no d
by daeken 14y ago
I think you're seriously missing the point. The point is not "employees for company X are all awesome!", but rather "company X is a good filter". This is no different than saying "a CS degree is a good filter"; it's not the be-all end-all, but it's a nice initial filter.
(Note: I have neither a CS degree (or even a high school diploma) nor have I worked for any of the companies mentioned.)
- ghettoCoder 14y agoPerhaps I was a bit harsh (I don't feel bad), but I don't think I'm missing the point. They are attempting to create an artificial scarcity that promotes their idea of what a good dev is. It is elitist.
- veyron 14y ago"They are attempting to create an artificial scarcity that promotes their idea of what a good dev is." No. They are catering to a group of people who specifically care about pedigree. They are trying to replace the role of the recruiters who do the same thing.
- hashset 14y agoYeah, but this 'pedigree' being thrown around in these comments is starting to look more and more like blatant discrimination, which was something the recruiters hide pretty well.
- veyron 14y ago"which was something the recruiters hide pretty well." The recruiters actively sell the idea that pedigree matters.
- eswangren 14y agoAre you under the impression that this sort of web development is as hard as it gets in the world of software development? Edit: meant to reply to parent