That tech is open to people of all backgrounds, even self taught, is awesome but it has its drawbacks: it's harder for the interviewer.
I disagree that there are objective measures and the vast amount of e-ink spilled on interviewing practice debates is proof of that (tech interviewing also doesn't correlate to the actual work being done!).
I'm on the "tech should be open to all" side but it _is_ harder for companies to filter out potential bad candidates. That's why they make up their own filters like "we only want seniors".
> the vast amount of e-ink spilled on interviewing practice debates is proof of that (tech interviewing also doesn't correlate to the actual work being done!)
You're right that CURRENT interview screening practices are far removed from actual work, but that will change. I don't think that it's proof that there aren't better assessments (which should be aligned with how work is actually done on the job). If anything, this is an opportunity to experiment more, and find better assessments.
> I disagree that there are objective measures...
I agree that there aren't fully objective measures, and may never be. What I do believe is that you can get SOME signal of competence from, say, someone's code about their competence at building something right now, which is a more objective, impartial signal than what happens in other industries which relies mostly on a behavioral interview (which allows for a lo t of bias to creep in)
I disagree that there are objective measures and the vast amount of e-ink spilled on interviewing practice debates is proof of that (tech interviewing also doesn't correlate to the actual work being done!).
I'm on the "tech should be open to all" side but it _is_ harder for companies to filter out potential bad candidates. That's why they make up their own filters like "we only want seniors".