> Can a candidate lacking the technical skills go deep into details the way the parent commenter describes?
I withdraw this somewhat rhetorical question. I should never have asked it because it's not the point (and it invites answers out of the original context that overlook "the way the parent commenter describes").
Here we have two ways of evaluating technical candidates, just two of perhaps many: One seems to be more arbitrary and unreliable than many have assumed, and the other is very time-consuming, doesn't reduce to graphable data and requires a really good interviewer.
Please just recognize that having candidates jump through technical hoops is not as solid and objective a method of evaluation as it might seem to you, and could even filter out certain kinds of great candidates. Where at all possible, please try to treat the human being under evaluation more like a human being and less like a horse.
I withdraw this somewhat rhetorical question. I should never have asked it because it's not the point (and it invites answers out of the original context that overlook "the way the parent commenter describes").
Here we have two ways of evaluating technical candidates, just two of perhaps many: One seems to be more arbitrary and unreliable than many have assumed, and the other is very time-consuming, doesn't reduce to graphable data and requires a really good interviewer.
Please just recognize that having candidates jump through technical hoops is not as solid and objective a method of evaluation as it might seem to you, and could even filter out certain kinds of great candidates. Where at all possible, please try to treat the human being under evaluation more like a human being and less like a horse.