Is it that they're bad, or is it that your tests stumble upon a small area in the huge realm of software engineering that those particular engineers struggled with on those particular days? Or, if you're asking these people the same group of questions and seeing a 90% failure rate, maybe your chosen questions have little overlap with common engineering tasks?
Why is it so hard to believe that even after 15 years of producing useful, quality software someone might still struggle with a random problem in an interview setting? What level of arrogance leads to this holier than thou thinking?
Why is it so hard to believe that even after 15 years of producing useful, quality software someone might still struggle with a random problem in an interview setting? What level of arrogance leads to this holier than thou thinking?