I think you're completely ignoring the reality of frauds. Jeff Atwood was writing about this over a decade ago with "FizzBuzz".
There are many people who spend more effort creating the illusion of competence on paper and on the job, getting harder to detect the higher they go.
We as a profession (software engineers) have continually resisted broad unified certification like other engineers which could be a replacement for code interviews to assess competence, but would have other drawbacks.
So we are stuck with code interviews to ferret out BSers. And even then it sometimes fails. But it appears to be the best tool we have, because there is nowhere to hide. Don't take ot so personally.
> There are many people who spend more effort creating the illusion of competence on paper and on the job, getting harder to detect the higher they go.
If you can navigate a software engineering position, purely undetected, by bullshitting it, I would say you can be a very good manager. You can probably handle high level concepts without knowing the implementation details.
This is basically what happened, the industry turned manager-heavy and expelled a lot of talent, replacing lifelong developers with bootcamp devs and other non-tech background people. It's kinda messed up because the lifelong developer types got called nerds growing up, had to learn what they know in the face of bullying and computers being very uncool, only to be basically replaced by those who made fun of them when it finally became "cool" and lucrative to be a developer.
Because it's all managers and no talent now, there's like an Interview Industrial Complex that emerged, where most teams spend the majority of time and energy just interviewing thousands of people and hiring/firing (via manufactured drama) while they never really build anything - it's all these managers know how to do because there are so few real developers left.
Some of the best developers I know of (of libs I use, etc.) outright refuse to work in the infantile conditions of the modern corporate setting anyway. The lucky ones have found other revenue streams and spend their coding energy on open source or personal ventures.
I talked to a young founder the other day - maybe 10 years younger than me, in his 20s - who said multiple times he was "retired", he kept waiting for some kind of validation on my face I guess but I just don't find it impressive. I lost respect actually, having heard that. In his mind he thinks he's a baller, in my mind he's a lazy egomaniac who knows 4 total things - I wouldn't even let this kid mow my lawn.
Smart, talented people just aren't valued anymore - it's more about prestige and authority now. But maybe not forever, they're certainly leaving themselves wide open at the advent of this LLM thing. Would love nothing more than the big tech ship to sink and get displaced by smaller, smarter companies.
> Smart, talented people just aren't valued anymore - it's more about prestige and authority now.
At the core of any corporation that isn't in the process of rapidly dying, between all the middle management and socialising and meetings with pretty graphs and interoffice politics, there needs to be someone that does some actual work.
This is where the nerd fits in a large corporation. That person is irreplaceable, and the layers around them recognise this (or else the company implodes). The may posture, but if you push, they will jump through hoops for you. Flex your muscles. You have more power than you think.
> I think you're completely ignoring the reality of frauds.
Or maybe their strategy still catches all of the frauds and it has therefore never been a problem to them?
I have to agree with their take, and just asking a bunch of technical questions -even without any code- is good enough to filter out the obvious incompetents.
People spending inordinate amounts of time memorizing solutions to common problems. This is admittedly partly the fault of HR not ensuring that interviewers have a good pool of problems to choose from and twists to put on things, but it's a constant cat and mouse game with various websites aggregating interview questions from companies.
It's pretty easy to spot when the candidate goes from canned answer to actually having to think. "Thank you, that looks good; now I need it to also do this extra thing" - keep tweaking the question until they have to think.
I’ve had reports of Zoom interview where an earpiece has fallen out and my interviewers heard advice on how to answer the question audibly present. Kind of dumb, how hard is mixing the audio?
There are many people who spend more effort creating the illusion of competence on paper and on the job, getting harder to detect the higher they go.
We as a profession (software engineers) have continually resisted broad unified certification like other engineers which could be a replacement for code interviews to assess competence, but would have other drawbacks.
So we are stuck with code interviews to ferret out BSers. And even then it sometimes fails. But it appears to be the best tool we have, because there is nowhere to hide. Don't take ot so personally.