&gt; We recognized her skill and experience and cut to the chase<p>So, to clarify, you&#x27;re advocating that programmers be hired based on resume, references, and a conversation about prior projects? I&#x27;m not sure I agree with this. It seems you&#x27;d be selecting for ability to present yourself as a good programmer over actually being a good programmer.<p>What is your objection to attempting to verify someone&#x27;s programming skill directly? It&#x27;s certainly not an <i>easy</i> thing to do, but it doesn&#x27;t seem apparent to me that it&#x27;s impossible  or not worthwhile.<p>If the standard &quot;whiteboard algorithmic brainteaser&quot; is not a high quality signal (which I&#x27;m not sure I grant, Google seems to think it is, and they claim to have the data to back it up, though they&#x27;re probably much, much more false-negative tolerant than most), it seems like there&#x27;s plenty of dials to twist to try and increase the signal-to-noise and cost&#x2F;benefit.<p>a) Length of interview (one hour? full day? trial run of several weeks?)<p>b) Topic (algorithmic vs. brainteaser vs. some attempt to simulate the &quot;real world&quot; to some level of fidelity?)<p>c) Interface (Whiteboard vs. on computer vs. something else?)<p>(I&#x27;m being a little disingenuous with the whiteboard vs. computer thing. I don&#x27;t get the value of writing on a whiteboard. I&#x27;m kinda hoping someone might be able to elucidate that.)<p>There&#x27;s probably not a one-size-fits-all. Depends on your tolerance for risk, how senior you&#x27;re trying to hire, how tight the job market is, etc. But I <i>really</i> would hesitate to work at a place that just took people&#x27;s word on their programming ability.