> Yet somehow we end up with people who cannot solve fizzbuzz.
Remember that those people (most likely) won't get hired. But they will keep fiddling with their resume/CV until they get called. So they'll keep showing up at interviews and be over represented. The talented folk will interview just a few times years apart so they are far less likely to be seen by interviewers.
If you do end up interviewing someone who can't solve fizzbuzz then it is a very good indicator that the hiring process is broken. The usual solution is to keep adding extra requirements in an attempt to weed them out, but that also weeds out the talented people too since they are less likely to have the exact required set of acronyms.
Hiring is hard - simple solutions like adding acronyms doesn't make it easier.
Remember that those people (most likely) won't get hired. But they will keep fiddling with their resume/CV until they get called. So they'll keep showing up at interviews and be over represented. The talented folk will interview just a few times years apart so they are far less likely to be seen by interviewers.
If you do end up interviewing someone who can't solve fizzbuzz then it is a very good indicator that the hiring process is broken. The usual solution is to keep adding extra requirements in an attempt to weed them out, but that also weeds out the talented people too since they are less likely to have the exact required set of acronyms.
Hiring is hard - simple solutions like adding acronyms doesn't make it easier.