Speaking of hard skills, testing only the relevant technology may not be too useful as it's likely to require adaptation, so something more generic like algorithmic questions are asked to evaluate the individual's thought process. It's far from ideal, though.
The challenge is that software geeks are not widget makers and are therefore completely unique if you're doing software right. I prefer to have a conversation about tech acceleration, hobbies and existential dread over technical quiz questions. We have coderpad/byte for those.
Jr devs are for growing your org and should be brought in and trained for 4-6 months as a paid position with the idea that after that time they will either be promoted to full devs or assisted in finding their next position. Sr devs are for training and leading the Jr devs.
Is it because of the interview structure or the fact that we are just generally bad at allocating time resource when making decisions? Ie: spending way too much time deciding between two similar level candidates.
