Ask HN: Why are hiring processes flawed and testing random standards?
In a nutshell: they aren&#x27;t.<p>The economics of it are that in many places in the world, it is extremely difficult to fire an employee. Getting rid of an underperformer can take time, effort, and exposes the company to liability if the termination can be construed as relating to the employee being in a protected class (e.g. can&#x27;t fire someone because she&#x27;s a woman). Let&#x27;s assume that it&#x27;s a SF startup willing to play a little fast and loose and they aren&#x27;t concerned with severance packages or the legal issues. They still put time and effort into training a new engineer. That&#x27;s months of work that is potentially wasted.<p>All of that means that companies are incredibly risk-averse when it comes to hiring, and will pass on someone who looks even slightly wrong to them. It also means that the process is inherently random as a company will pass on someone they aren&#x27;t sure of _even if they would have been a good hire_ just because they aren&#x27;t certain. However, this also means that a lot of companies rely on self-selection in their hiring pool. Look for people they already know, from the same backgrounds, or are willing to pass through a series of arbitrary tests.<p>In short, it&#x27;s like democracy. It&#x27;s the worst form of government, except for all the others we&#x27;ve tried.