Is there any falsifiable evidence in this article? All I read was a big advertisement for a recuiter named Jon Marcus, with a bunch of assertions about how companies could recruit better if they only lowered their standards. Of course you can increase your yield if you accept lower quality. That's as true in manufacturing as it is in human resources.
"He’s interviewed Ivy Leaguers and dropouts; and as a result, he has helped shape countless “A teams” and every other kind of team, then watched those teams suceed or fail."
Really? I've never seen a recruiter follow up with any candidate whatsoever, and I've interviewed hundreds of candidates from the employer side. So I have serious doubts about his ability to shape or understand how a candidate can affect an organization. The feedback loop just doesn't exist - companies don't provide outside entities (recruiters) feedback about their hired employees. The legal risk alone is too high.
Case in point:
"[Y]ou don’t need the whole staff to be engineering geniuses. You need a couple really bright people who know what they’re doing, and then, just don’t turn down people who can do the job."
really, I only need a couple of people who know what they're doing? What exactly are the rest of the engineers doing? They don't know what they're doing, but can follow instructions from those who do? I'd rather just not hire those people to begin with. According to Jon Marcus then, I'm part of the problem. Except, he has a real financial incentive to place marginal people, since he gets 20-25% of the first year salary. What do you think that does to his opinion of hirability?
I think the "final words" are the definition of 'obsequious'. Say something of real substance, and commit to it:
"Haskell and Scala are both very powerful and practical programming languages, but with different strengths and weaknesses. Neither language is perfect and I think there is room for improvements in both. I will definitely continue to use both of them, at least until something better shows up. Some new interesting ones on my radar are Rust, ATS and Idris."
"He’s interviewed Ivy Leaguers and dropouts; and as a result, he has helped shape countless “A teams” and every other kind of team, then watched those teams suceed or fail."
Really? I've never seen a recruiter follow up with any candidate whatsoever, and I've interviewed hundreds of candidates from the employer side. So I have serious doubts about his ability to shape or understand how a candidate can affect an organization. The feedback loop just doesn't exist - companies don't provide outside entities (recruiters) feedback about their hired employees. The legal risk alone is too high.
Case in point: "[Y]ou don’t need the whole staff to be engineering geniuses. You need a couple really bright people who know what they’re doing, and then, just don’t turn down people who can do the job."
really, I only need a couple of people who know what they're doing? What exactly are the rest of the engineers doing? They don't know what they're doing, but can follow instructions from those who do? I'd rather just not hire those people to begin with. According to Jon Marcus then, I'm part of the problem. Except, he has a real financial incentive to place marginal people, since he gets 20-25% of the first year salary. What do you think that does to his opinion of hirability?