There are two separate points here. One is the false-positive problem: people whose social skills and connections get them a series of good jobs despite a lack of merit. And even in companies like Google those people can make $500k and up if they become managers, PMs, or non-programming celebrity engineers whose code sucks but who are good at making executive types (who value confidence over ability, because they can judge the former) listen to them. The other problem raised is the false-negative rate that comes from finicky and stressful (for some; I always liked hard technical interviews) interview tactics, due to our internalized low status.
These problems may be related but they're superficially opposite and this should probably be two separate essays. One about our industry's severe false positive problem (especially in management and PM roles) and another about why our extreme but mostly cosmetic selectivity (doesn't know MongoDB? Worked at Oracle? Forty-seven? No hire!) is so stupidly ineffective.
These problems may be related but they're superficially opposite and this should probably be two separate essays. One about our industry's severe false positive problem (especially in management and PM roles) and another about why our extreme but mostly cosmetic selectivity (doesn't know MongoDB? Worked at Oracle? Forty-seven? No hire!) is so stupidly ineffective.