I'm beginning to think that one way to "fix" hiring is to do stuff that nobody else is doing.
Everyone else is screening people based on resumes? Then, you can find good candidates by ignoring resumes, so you find good people with bad experience.
Nobody else hires people older than 40? Then you target people who are older than 40 but are still good workers.
Everyone wants a programmer with X experience but there's a shortage of people with X experience? Then hire good programmers without X experience, and give them a chance to learn X on the job.
Nobody else gives a work-sample test? Then giving a work-sample test is a benefit. You find candidates who are desperate and good enough to do the work-sample test. If everyone gives a work-sample test, then you get an advantage by NOT doing a work-sample test. (For example, a company with a work-sample test is now excluding me from their candidate pool, due the the large number of bad experiences I've had with them.)
One idea that seems workable is the paid work-sample test. But then you have to do some screening before giving people the test. (I.e., hire someone for a 10-20 hour mini-project before committing to hiring them full-time.)
With 100 hours of free time, I could get a personal project done and put it on the Internet somewhere. That seems like a much better use of my time than doing 10-20 work-sample tests for companies that aren't going to give me an interview even after I do it.
Everyone else is screening people based on resumes? Then, you can find good candidates by ignoring resumes, so you find good people with bad experience.
Nobody else hires people older than 40? Then you target people who are older than 40 but are still good workers.
Everyone wants a programmer with X experience but there's a shortage of people with X experience? Then hire good programmers without X experience, and give them a chance to learn X on the job.
Nobody else gives a work-sample test? Then giving a work-sample test is a benefit. You find candidates who are desperate and good enough to do the work-sample test. If everyone gives a work-sample test, then you get an advantage by NOT doing a work-sample test. (For example, a company with a work-sample test is now excluding me from their candidate pool, due the the large number of bad experiences I've had with them.)
One idea that seems workable is the paid work-sample test. But then you have to do some screening before giving people the test. (I.e., hire someone for a 10-20 hour mini-project before committing to hiring them full-time.)
With 100 hours of free time, I could get a personal project done and put it on the Internet somewhere. That seems like a much better use of my time than doing 10-20 work-sample tests for companies that aren't going to give me an interview even after I do it.