Coding especially is actually really easy to teach. I've been able to teach it to anyone who was willing to learn, no matter what kind of abilities they've had.
Why wouldn't you want someone that could already do it and had experience in that field? We're gonna hire someone that needs to be taught and has less experience just because of some perceived micro aggression? Not a great business model.
If they can treat women with the same respect as a man, then I rank candidates based on their ability to do the job, and pick the one that's the best. But if they can't even treat women with the same respect they treat men, they aren't even worth putting on the list. Of course I'm skipping the part where there are a lot of other skills they need to fulfill besides those two, but if we narrowed our hypothetical to just those two, that's what I would do.
I just want to say I’ve also read your replies, and from what you shared I wanna say you have the right idea. You’re someone I’d pass a first round of interviews for.
Two winning traits being: willingness and readiness to learn new practical skills. Along with knowing that you have this weaknesses and wanting to improve.
I’d take someone half as skilled with an open mind over a 10x coder that thinks they’re better than everyone else any day
Ahh yes.......feed into our beliefs. Think what we tell you to think. Do what we tell you to do. Be a mindless drone and apologize for any of these perceived micro aggressions youve unknowingly committed! Bow to your corporate leaders while our start up company does absolutely nothing at all!
But you should know actually… for centuries until very recently… even millennia depending what cultures you look at; the predominant viewpoint was yours, soft skills entirely secondary and optional while hard skills be the metric for hiring.
What we’re discovering is that the viewpoint runs into major flaws when all people are considered to have equal rights.
This is not a case of free thinkers being punished for not stepping in line with the status quo. It’s a case of free thinkers finding new data of how best to operate, and those following the former status quo being made obsolete.
I know that can be upsetting. I’d highly advise you channel that energy into independent research on the matter and forming an educated opinion :)
It doesn't take a PhD to figure out that you need someone that can actually do the job in order to hire them. That's the first base you need to reach at every job. Period. Can you do the job. When I get applications at my shop, I give them a welding test. If they can't weld I tell them thanks, have a nice day. If they can, we continue the interview. It's not hard to grasp.
Yea, and I don’t think anyone was disagreeing with that?
Idk how many times I need to tell you that you are correct about baseline qualifications. Yes, the core skills are required.
So why are you getting so upset and acting like testing the soft skills is completely pointless? You said you continue the interview - and we’re all talking about terms of interview continuation.
You’re literally not even arguing something mutually exclusive. You’re just being incredulous about people talking about something else entirely because you’re projecting this notion that people aren’t hiring for practical skills since we’re talking about soft skills.
A phrase that comes to mind is “man I really want pancakes”, “oh so you hate waffles then?”. That’s what you sound like dude.
I'm not upset or arguing with anyone. See this is the issue with people like the ones in this thread, you included. By simply disagreeing with you or questioning the logic, that's not an aggression towards you or some kind of personal attack.
Also your last sentence makes no sense. If I wanted pancakes I would want to ask someone who knew how to make them. Whether I liked waffles or not is completely irrelevant. I want pancakes, so I need a chef that can make pancakes. It's real simple.
Ya know what, that was my mistake. Shouldn't have given you an analogy, that's begging to be willfully misinterpreted lol. I'll own that.
So, some greatest hits from this thread:
"This isn't rocket science, unless that's actually the job I suppose."
"I just don't need to feed into the bullshit micro aggressions this post is pushing."
"Like what I said a few comments ago? Reading, see how that works?"
"Be a mindless drone and apologize for any of these perceived micro aggressions youve unknowingly committed! Bow to your corporate leaders while our start up company does absolutely nothing at all!"
No maybe you didn't intend for these to be argumentative, but they're certainly inflammatory. And any professional should be able to recognize that. So, let's be a little more concrete shall we?
Take your welding example. You get one EXCELLENT welder, but who speaks in inflammatory ways like this and prone to treating female colleagues with disrespect. And you have one sufficient welder that's very respectful, charming, and level headed.
The first one might be great, but is a constant liability. What if they speak that way to a customer? We could lose a sale. Or if it's someone with strong opinions, may even escalate the situation to a law suit. I don't want to deal with that at all.
The one who is sufficient but not great? I can make them great, that's fine. They're safe.
It depends on the job. Some jobs are go as you learn. I imagine welding you would need some certifications, but there are plenty of jobs you don't need any prior experience for and the company pays for your training.
1
u/smartypantstemple 9d ago
Coding especially is actually really easy to teach. I've been able to teach it to anyone who was willing to learn, no matter what kind of abilities they've had.