The current system isn't entirely broken, but it needs works, and the work needs to come from both sides. Candidates need to do a better job of how they market

The current system isn't entirely broken, but it needs works, and the work needs to come from both sides. Candidates need to do a better job of how they market themselves to employers, and employers need to improve how they select and evaluate talent both on paper and in interviews. The news a couple weeks ago about Google and their alleged use of trick questions and such hopefully raised awareness of the problems surrounding tech interviews, the value of GPAs and majors, etc., for all the other companies. Google is one of a handful of shops that shape how others think they should do things. As I mentioned in another comment, managers today are more keen on seeing code. A resume can make whatever unverified claims you want to make. I mentioned a project I'm working on (http://geekrez.com http://geekrez.com) that is hoping to change how talent represents themselves to hiring entities and somewhat trying to replace the resume submission process with items managers want to see. A Stack Overflow reputation score is not a self-assessed expertise in a specific technology, but rather something that is assessed by others. Saying you write good code is one thing, but let's see what you have in your GitHub or Bitbucket to prove what you are saying. These are the types of things that will get devs hired in the years to come. Personal references are a whole other story. If someone can't find 3 people to say something nice about their work, they shouldn't be in the industry. The only thing that is valuable about references is when a handful (3-5 usually) of people provide very consistent information - to be more specific, consistent with both positive and negative items. I know when I hear a few people share the same strengths and weaknesses about a candidate that I'm probably getting a pretty good and honest assessment (or they have all been superbly prepped).