If it takes months to determine that someone is a bad fit for a team then the team has internal issues that need to be resolved.
Moreover, if someone has the skills on paper, and the references to support that, then any tech screening is unnecessary. It just tests for ability to pass tech screens.
The problem is "skill on paper" is just that, words. There's tons of java developers but not all the same. References too are pretty easy to game. Alternatively if by skills on paper you mean open source projects, that's fair but most developers (and certainly most new grads) won't have anything worthwhile to show.
The tech screens can show a person's skill. Sure, lots of people are gaming that too and memorize solutions, but that's not most candidates.
There's only a very, very small difference between those two things though. I'm not hiring anyone based on either of those bulletpoints or similar ones; no matter how many there are.
It's so easy to inflate your role on a project and what you contributed and the people who are best at it are usually also able to talk, talk, talk.
The first interview question I ask is so easy that I don't think anyone should be paid to write software anywhere if they can't solve it. And yet, I have candidates with plenty of nice bulletpoints like your second one on their resume who can't solve it or take 30-45 minutes to solve it. Good candidates take less than 10 minutes, very good ones take less than 5.
Ah, you've got a gotcha bullet point question that you think is a killer technical ability question. But you're asking it in a completely abnormal situation, an interview. All you're testing for is the candidate's ability to answer your clever question in a scenario where their ability and personal value is actively being judged; which is wholly unlike any day-to-day challenge they are to encounter.
The question is not a gotcha. It is not trivia. It is not even a "killer technical ability" question. It's a question I considered not including because I thought it was too easy. Folks I've interviewed proved me wrong and I've come to realize that when I get any signal from it, it's the best question I ask.
If you know what a hash map or dictionary is then you can solve it. If you can't answer a problem because you're under pressure then that's a no hire signal on its own.
I think we should agree to disagree. We both seem to like our own process and see major flaws with the other’s. The best solution is to work at different companies.
FWIW, I was introduced to this method by others, and have used/been a part of this method at several companies now; and I find that each company where I have seen it employed has had remarkably low turn-over and high team morale. Much lower turn over, and higher morale, than the companies I've been at that have done otherwise. Also anecdotally, the companies that employ this method have been the same companies that seemed most willing to train and aid an under-performing employee, rather than simply let them go.
I think it's because the awareness of the need to ensure performance is baked-in to the process; rather than having an assumption that the hire should have a high level of performance. Employees aren't like other physical assets, like computers and other hardware, they're malleable human beings that are accepting of improvement.
But I don't know of any large studies on the merits of this approach, so perhaps I've simply been lucky to have had positive experiences.
In my point of view, most hiring requires a form of internship. No one drops on to an established team with full knowledge and experience with the internal tools, procedures and products.
And yes, I lament that internships are so maligned. It shouldn't be that interns are poorly paid; we should be able to hire someone with decades of experience in a tangentially-related field at a competitive salary, and consider them to be interning on an unfamiliar field.
Internships are probably the best way to hire, but they only work for people at that specific stage of life.
University students already have a three-month gap in their schedule where they aren't doing anything, so they are willing to take a temporary role to fill that gap.
Experienced people who already have a job aren't going to drop that to take on a temporary role unless they have an unusually high risk-tolerance or unless they are desperate.
Moreover, if someone has the skills on paper, and the references to support that, then any tech screening is unnecessary. It just tests for ability to pass tech screens.