majorbloodnock (1/15/2013)
GSquared (1/15/2013)
The problem with the part I added emphasis to, is that quite often a company needs to hire a DBA because they don't have anyone who knows anything significant about the subject. So they really can't effectively screen against fraudulent interviewees.
...
Hmmm. Yes and no.
You're quite right, of course, that I was being overly flippant, and I hold my hands up; guilty as charged.
Personally, I see a lot of small companies balk at the cost of a DBA, so try to enter into the world of databases on the cheap by trying to take on someone who's only starting out in that area. It's arguably better value to look for someone with quantifiable prior experience which, whilst not eliminating the risk, swings the odds more in your favour that you'll get someone at least half competent.
IMHO, of course.....
I see both sides here. It's hard to hire when you don't know how to evaluate skills. The trick of seeing through BS when you aren't technically skilled isn't one I think most people have. I find that hiring a consultant of some sort to interview for you is common, but it's problematic and expensive. Ultimately finding candidates is hard, and paying 20-30% for a placement firm is bad enough. Adding in what could be another 10-15% for interview time for a consultant is hard.
A good reason to retain people when you can and hire good people on recommendations, even if you don't have a slot.