• t3rmit3@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    6 months ago

    it seems like an easy way to save time and money on hiring

    If you are seeing this change based on whether you exclude people without comp sci degrees, what you’re really seeing is your recruitment firm/ team’s lack of effort or expertise. It’s literally the job of recruiters to separate the wheat from the chaff. If you’re doing it yourselves by putting hard restrictions on the recruitment team to remove the bad results they are letting go through, you should be taking a hard look at that company or team.

    • jarfil@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      It’s even more evil: they’re shifting their recruitment firm/team’s job, to the candidates themselves, requiring them to pay to prove their worth at a third party (college).

      No wonder it “saves [them] time and money”.

    • KRAW@linux.community
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      Wouldn’t you argue that putting hard restrictions would have the benefit of shrinkjng your recruitment team? To be clear, I’m coming from an extremely anecdotal point of view, but to me it seems like tech is full of imposters jumping from job to job, playing up their experience. Recruiters cannot spot these people, because they know all the jargon despite having none of the skills. This is why these technical interviews exist, but now those are even being gamed by people by studying leetcode. I’d be really curious what a high quality tech recruiter does vs the average.