> We need a credential that counts as passing a technical interview
This idea already exists in many forms. Pick any language, platform, or technical concept and there's someone offering training and certification.
It also describes the whole recruiting industry. "What if there was one person who did a lot of interviews and then presented just the best people to employers?"
It's an extremely human incentive alignment problem. Any certification program, interview farm, or bootcamp that makes more money when they produce more candidates will make quantity the goal, not quality. If you can figure out that problem, maybe there's a niche. Otherwise, it puts us right where we already are.
The trainings and certifications won't let you bypass technical interviews though. There's still inherent distrust of them. We need a credential good enough that companies can trust.
Most of the recruiters I deal with are only doing screens and maybe soft interviews -- I may be on the lower rungs of the ladder here though.
For the last point, I'll offer Offensive Security as an example because I have one of their certs. OS wants people in its programs as we're a source of income, obviously, but they don't get revenue from people passing. In fact, they get more revenue if you don't pass because they charge per attempt. They offer training for organizations too.
They also act as a verification service for their certifications:
The idea for a programming credential would be the same: an organization that offers training, doesn't make money on pass rates, and also is a trusted point of verification.
Some companies have offered to do technical interviews, then pass you to employers. This is a start, but it isn't industry wide.
Maybe run the testing and evaluation side of things at cost. The certifiers instead get profit from companies that subscribe to their certification verification program. There's a small fee for the employer to verify someone's certification is genuine. Part of the employer's contract with the certifier would be that anyone the employer hires who has been verified to be certified, when they've been employed at the company for a year, they owe the certifier a bonus. There's a second bonus at five years and that's the end of the payments. The certifier is incentivized to only certify workers who have genuine skills as those are the ones most likely to hit the one and five year milestones. Talent acquisition is expensive, as is employee turnover, so employers will not have an incentive to layoff employees right before their employment anniversary in an attempt to avoid the fee they owe the certifier. They'll find that the anniversary fee is a small price to pay for having been matched up with an employee with the actual skills the employer needs.
This idea already exists in many forms. Pick any language, platform, or technical concept and there's someone offering training and certification.
It also describes the whole recruiting industry. "What if there was one person who did a lot of interviews and then presented just the best people to employers?"
It's an extremely human incentive alignment problem. Any certification program, interview farm, or bootcamp that makes more money when they produce more candidates will make quantity the goal, not quality. If you can figure out that problem, maybe there's a niche. Otherwise, it puts us right where we already are.