> it is because some people have worked at very impressive jobs... they actually can't do the job
> In the hiring process there has to be some kind of skill test
Thats a contradiction:
1 - 90% of companies do skill tests
2 - you cannot trust the CV of a candidate even if the company they worked on previously also did a skill test
3 - you think your skill test will enable you to hire the right candidate
So everyone is doing tests and everyone is hiring shit candidates anyway?
That's literally proof that these tests are worthless.
Maybe if the recruiters actually knew what they need from a candidate, companies were clearer about what the job involves, they would stop hiring the wrong people for the wrong job.
1 - I don’t know the hiring standards of every company and that 90% sounds made up to be honest.
2 - We can not trust the CV. Maybe the company did a test, maybe they didn’t. Maybe their test are to our standard, maybe they aren’t. Maybe the candidate barely passed. Maybe the candidate actually failed but made up in other ways that might be relevant to the other company, but not ours. I doubt anyone would give us this information about their current or former employees. Maybe the candidate really did work on the projects he claimed or maybe he was only tangentially involved. That is a lot of unknowns. A test clears up what the person actually can do.
3- Yes. It works for us. Do we miss out on some good candidates because of this? Yes, but it definitely prevented us from hiring bad candidates.
Again: if there is a better way then I would like to know. I have not found one yet.
There are some studies that claim a large percentage of people (40%+) lie on their CVs. As someone who hasn't done that and struggles to lie even in games, I have a hard time believing it. But even if 5-10% of people lie, hiring is a lemon market, and you definitely don't want to get stuck with the lemons.
Most lying is apparently to change start and end dates of previous employment to cover up short stints where they may have been fired for poor performance, but even if work samples/skill tests/structured interviews were 95% effective, you would still regularly hire duds.
We asked him some questions about the code when he came in for the last interview and contract signatures. He didn't have a single clue about any of what he supposedly wrote. When we talked further he admitted to using a Team in India that has been working for him for a while.
Needless to say we didn't proceed with signing the contract.
> In the hiring process there has to be some kind of skill test
Thats a contradiction:
1 - 90% of companies do skill tests
2 - you cannot trust the CV of a candidate even if the company they worked on previously also did a skill test
3 - you think your skill test will enable you to hire the right candidate
So everyone is doing tests and everyone is hiring shit candidates anyway?
That's literally proof that these tests are worthless.
Maybe if the recruiters actually knew what they need from a candidate, companies were clearer about what the job involves, they would stop hiring the wrong people for the wrong job.