Finally someone has figured out how to hire accurately.
How can an engineering team say they have a good process if they don't measure the results of the process?
Sure, you can make a lot of logical leaps, but what does it actually produce?
How does this compare to hiring by randomly picking a sufficiently good-looking resume?
Why not go a step further, and add a fee to become a candidate? Or perhaps just to skirt the queue and get to the front of the line?
Edit: Then there's the industrial espionage aspect but I don't really care about that, it's probably for the best if competitors and curious folks interview with them to learn what they have and how it works and undermine their business.
In software, how much can you really get out of a human with a very small context who has no long term view or investment in the quality of the codebase? If you care that little, you'd just punt it off to vibe agents.
I've been interviewing some lately, mainly with organisations that have tight restrictions on non-EU-services. It has been nice, we've been able to talk about what they need, what I can do and how their team works together and interfaces with the rest of the organisation.
Eventually I settled on an offer from an organisation that handles a lot of sensitive information and runs a kind of 'factory' style process, so there'll be requirements reminiscent of old fashioned industrial engineering and exactly zero vibing at work, at least if the Security Service says my reputation is good enough.
Would be the most fair ground rules to set as candidate.
Analog: https://bookshop.org