You're basing your entire argument on an arbitrary deadline (six weeks).
I am giggling as I am monitoring several job forums and seeing several companies pop up periodically (once a quarter I'd say) looking for the same positions... 2.5 years later.
So let's change the example. Is it really worth it to be as picky for 2.5 years? I'd wager they lost money because of that. Any senior dev can learn GWT or anything similar in much less than 6 weeks even (though proficiency is another matter).
And ability to self-learn can be somewhat gauged by a take-home assignment.
And let's say that they found their "dream" candidate that knew GWT. Technologies change and improve over time, can you imagine a place that is still using GWT, or jQuery, or backbone? Whoever they hire is going to have to learn new technologies while working there, otherwise they need to fire all their devs and go back out and hire React devs or whatever is the flavor of the day.
Even something as stable as Java has changed dramatically as it has absorbed functional and parallel concepts from Scala and Kotlin. Any dev should be hired on their ability to learn, not, or not just, on what specific tech they know now.
> ... otherwise they need to fire all their devs and go back out and hire React devs or whatever is the flavor of the day.
One of the companies in the area has a strict N year cycle for contractors. After N years all contracts end and they rehire for the next cycle.
If the technology stack changes then they hire different contractors as the projects forecast needs.
I am not saying that this is a good idea - lots of domain knowledge gets lost ever N years... but it is a solution the "we can't require contractors to learn new skills and are unable to hire for the aptitude to learn new things."
It was not about GWT at all. That was exactly my point: passing on a senior just because they don't know $specific_tech that can be learned in 2 weeks is a short-sighted business decision.
> Is it really worth it to be as picky for 2.5 years
Yes as an employer.
> I'd wager they lost money because of that
No. If a role isn't filled in a quarter, that money is in most cases reverted back into the compensation pool used to either help hire a high performer, or give bonuses to the existing team.
99% of a time, an IC Engineering role will NOT make or break a company's entire financial future.
If this is one of those 1% roles, those are hired through internal networks because of how critical they are.
Hm, I think we're talking different scenarios. I was under the impression that the new person is sorely needed and not having them on board would lead to lost revenue.
I am giggling as I am monitoring several job forums and seeing several companies pop up periodically (once a quarter I'd say) looking for the same positions... 2.5 years later.
So let's change the example. Is it really worth it to be as picky for 2.5 years? I'd wager they lost money because of that. Any senior dev can learn GWT or anything similar in much less than 6 weeks even (though proficiency is another matter).
And ability to self-learn can be somewhat gauged by a take-home assignment.