> We'd love to hear any ideas for more experiments we could run.
As much as possible, persist the interview results per-candidate and make them reusable so people don't have to re-do the same work over and over and over again. One of the worst parts of interviewing is answering the same basic CS 101 question in every interview because everybody reads the same "how to interview a programmer" post written 15 years ago. Yes, 22 year old interviewer, I know what a compiler is, what an open source license is, what linux is, and how to write a linked list. Also, I've written code for NASA, but you have no basis to evaluate that against your limited knowledge and life experience, so keep asking things you learned two years ago.
I looked into doing something like this a while ago. The long term goal is obviously to become a candidate marketplace where you hold all the quality cards and charge a fee to companies who want a pre-vetted, guaranteed ("our programmers are warrantied against hip dysplasia!") employee pool.
The end result is essentially credentialing/certification where companies only want to hire people "Certified by X." Then, those people can also job hop easier because they are "certified" and don't have to repeat the same interview process everywhere again. Mild speed bumps in credentialing end up being: re-certification (sure I know all this now, but I may not remember any of it 6 months later), bleeding-edge certification (do you even react-goober-swift?), and maintenance certification ("I know this 20 year old technology nobody else knows!").
The reason special people will run away screaming: we don't want to be treated as interchangeable cogs. We are unicorn pony snowflakes. We want our $30k/week contracts and don't need to be evaluated by another programmer's static scripts pseudo-determining what they think is a fair evaluation of our bespoke, artisanal knowledge and abilities.
As much as possible, persist the interview results per-candidate and make them reusable so people don't have to re-do the same work over and over and over again. One of the worst parts of interviewing is answering the same basic CS 101 question in every interview because everybody reads the same "how to interview a programmer" post written 15 years ago. Yes, 22 year old interviewer, I know what a compiler is, what an open source license is, what linux is, and how to write a linked list. Also, I've written code for NASA, but you have no basis to evaluate that against your limited knowledge and life experience, so keep asking things you learned two years ago.
I looked into doing something like this a while ago. The long term goal is obviously to become a candidate marketplace where you hold all the quality cards and charge a fee to companies who want a pre-vetted, guaranteed ("our programmers are warrantied against hip dysplasia!") employee pool.
The end result is essentially credentialing/certification where companies only want to hire people "Certified by X." Then, those people can also job hop easier because they are "certified" and don't have to repeat the same interview process everywhere again. Mild speed bumps in credentialing end up being: re-certification (sure I know all this now, but I may not remember any of it 6 months later), bleeding-edge certification (do you even react-goober-swift?), and maintenance certification ("I know this 20 year old technology nobody else knows!").
The reason special people will run away screaming: we don't want to be treated as interchangeable cogs. We are unicorn pony snowflakes. We want our $30k/week contracts and don't need to be evaluated by another programmer's static scripts pseudo-determining what they think is a fair evaluation of our bespoke, artisanal knowledge and abilities.