> 1. For the first 6 months you're paying a sr. engineers salary to get jr. engineer productivity. Given that most devs switch after 2 years this is a huge productivity hit and it's all front loaded.
There's something wrong with your hiring pipeline and IC career path if that's what you are observing.
Try paying more for new hires.
> 2. While great devs are great, it's a lot easier to figure out if someone is a framework/language expert than if they are an intrinsically great dev in an interview. i.e. ("Do you know C# well?" is easier to determine than "Are you a good problem solver?")
It's easier to grade multiple choice exams as compared to essays. But the former mostly measures how well someone can rote memorize.
> 5. Most devs are searching for jobs in the ecosystems they like working in. But a lot of devs who can't find a job get desperate and start applying to everything, which can bring down average quality of people who don't have expertise.
Get a better hiring pipeline. If you start dealing with too many clueless candidates it's time to look out where they are coming from (which recruiter, school, whatever) and switching source.
We were paying ~200k a year which while not FAANG is almost double the national average for software engineers.
> It's easier to grade multiple choice exams as compared to essays. But the former mostly measures how well someone can rote memorize.
It seems obvious to me if you have two equally useful attributes, and two measures. You should rely on the measure that more accurately reflects the actual attribute. Finding and hiring great problem solvers is a notoriously hard problem.
> Get a better hiring pipeline. If you start dealing with too many clueless candidates it's time to look out where they are coming from (which recruiter, school, whatever) and switching source.
What pipelines would you suggest? We used recruiters, indeed, monster, hiring, hacker news, stack overflow, etc... None of them were a silver bullet. They all had drawbacks.
> We were paying ~200k a year which while not FAANG is almost double the national average for software engineers.
I read two things: Not FAANG and national average.
If you are competing for FANNG talent that's where you should aim. Whatever average, that includes all bodyshops and bootcamp grads is a useless measure. Average Football player in the US and NFL football players have very different compensations.
> What pipelines would you suggest? We used recruiters, indeed, monster, hiring, hacker news, stack overflow, etc... None of them were a silver bullet. They all had drawbacks.
For college hires go directly at the source. At which university do you recruit?
There's something wrong with your hiring pipeline and IC career path if that's what you are observing.
Try paying more for new hires.
> 2. While great devs are great, it's a lot easier to figure out if someone is a framework/language expert than if they are an intrinsically great dev in an interview. i.e. ("Do you know C# well?" is easier to determine than "Are you a good problem solver?")
It's easier to grade multiple choice exams as compared to essays. But the former mostly measures how well someone can rote memorize.
> 5. Most devs are searching for jobs in the ecosystems they like working in. But a lot of devs who can't find a job get desperate and start applying to everything, which can bring down average quality of people who don't have expertise.
Get a better hiring pipeline. If you start dealing with too many clueless candidates it's time to look out where they are coming from (which recruiter, school, whatever) and switching source.