The assumption is qualified by the preface "all things being equal." However, the post confuses me. His story quite clearly demonstrates that all other things are _not_ equal, and that "a CS degree, C++ experience, and a year with Ruby on Rails who's asking $20 an hour" is not enough evidence to determine whether someone is competent or not.
He also gives an example of a test of competency that seems to work quite well for his purposes.
The thing that confuses me about the story is that instead of writing a blog post explaining that you need to pay more attention to tests and less to paper qualifications, he seems to be lamenting the fact that the qualifications do not mean what he thinks they mean.
He tosses out the "all other things being equal" phrase rather carelessly, IMO. I think he would be well-advised to spend a lot more time with the idea that all other things are rarely equal when it comes to hiring programmers.
He also gives an example of a test of competency that seems to work quite well for his purposes.
The thing that confuses me about the story is that instead of writing a blog post explaining that you need to pay more attention to tests and less to paper qualifications, he seems to be lamenting the fact that the qualifications do not mean what he thinks they mean.
He tosses out the "all other things being equal" phrase rather carelessly, IMO. I think he would be well-advised to spend a lot more time with the idea that all other things are rarely equal when it comes to hiring programmers.