This person sounds completely insufferable. He basically is declaring himself too good for interviews (except for C-level execs, whom he apparently tolerates). Heaven forbid you don't just assume Ernie Miller is god's gift to your job position, because he is Ernie Miller and he is a special unique snowflake who is not to be insulted with petty questions pertaining to his ability to do the job.
> ...who is not to be insulted with petty questions pertaining to his ability to do the job.
So when was the last time your preferred language's sort function magically disappeared and you had to come up with your own?
The interviewing process is criticized so frequently because companies focus on petty questions that are unrelated to a candidate's ability to do the job.
Did you actually read the article, or just the big, bold letters? The point wasn't that I am special. It's that each person is an individual, and a company that doesn't recognize that situations differ and make reasonable accommodations is unlikely to be a company at which I (or many like me, if the comments are any indicator) would enjoy working.
If a worker is going to work remotely, is it a better evaluation of her skill to have her do her coding test remotely or have her do it in the office? Likewise, is it fair to ask a potential remote worker to take on an endeavor that's much more cumbersome than it would be for an in-office worker.
The other part of the argument is that the hiring company may be affecting its ability to evaluate a candidate by subjecting him to a situation that's pretty different from the job's reality. Ostensibly, the point of having someone work out of the office is to see how well he'll do if he gets the job, but in the case of a remote worker, this may not be a good indicator.
I think all of this is highly debatable, and there's probably no right answer, but there is lots of food for thought!
Did you read his comment? He referred to your "C-level execs" comment, which was in normal font about half way into the article. I didn't really have a problem with your original article, but responding like this doesn't make you look good.
I did, and that's what I found bothersome. He clearly seized on the "I am special" header and then interpreted the C-level exec comment in terms of that, when the whole point of the "I am special" part was that I'm not. Or, at least, that everyone is unique.
I may have responded harshly, but certainly in kind.
I got a different impression. The interview process isn't anything but a crude filter, and its wasting everyones time. Ernie's, AND the interviewer. Its hard to tell if someone is a fit, without actually working with them.
The article was peevish, but I identify with the author's viewpoint. I suggest they interview with smaller companies, where for instance you can meet everyone and chat more informally. Like a startup.
I think you're missing a couple of points here. First and foremost, he wouldn't mind being asked "petty questions pertaining to his ability to do the job," but by and large, he is NOT being asked those questions - that's kind of the entire point of his article. Second of all, it's not that he "tolerates" C level execs, he's just making the observation that they seem to conduct better interviews because, when it comes to the value of other people's time, they "get" it.
I think your twisting his words about C-level executives. The point of that section was the value of time, and was using his experience with executives to illustrate that point, not to insinuate that he deserves to bypass lower-level employees.
Anyway, good luck with that.