Though I agree with Joel on this central point here, I think it's important to take into account the randomness that applies to technical recruiting - it's hardly perfect (full disclosure: I am a lower-tier member of the 99%, having interviewed at 5-6 [internal, so not even as challenging as top tier software house] places and being rejected every time), the proliferation of 'puzzle' questions of the crossing-the-bridge-with-a-flashlight-and-some-pals ilk is a pretty good indication; I doubt many people would now agree that those kind of questions are a good means of hiring good engineers.
Steve Yegge writes at length about how tech hiring sucks, pretty much (cf. [1]), and how random chance plays a big role, and that's based on a great deal of hiring he's done himself.
I hate to be negative; I just think it's important to accept that hiring good engineers is hard. There are great people out there who interview terribly, and average people out there who interview wonderfully.
Steve Yegge writes at length about how tech hiring sucks, pretty much (cf. [1]), and how random chance plays a big role, and that's based on a great deal of hiring he's done himself.
I hate to be negative; I just think it's important to accept that hiring good engineers is hard. There are great people out there who interview terribly, and average people out there who interview wonderfully.
[1]:http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2008/03/get-that-job-at-goog...