Because with a trivially large enough network of friends willing to game the system, you could just keep buying each other top-paying jobs over the course of a few years. So long as you're at least a mediocre engineer, you can make it past the two-month mark and everyone gets their ROI.
> people with the ability to afford payment have a higher chance of being hired
That's the other very valid reason that this idea sucks. People from disadvantaged communities now not only have the existing hurdles to face in entering the tech world; now trust fund kids with rich friends can continually skip the line and buy the jobs that others are applying for. And a company is going to take the pay-to-play candidate, because it's easier than running an interview process.
> So long as you're at least a mediocre engineer, you can make it past the two-month mark and everyone gets their ROI.
Is this sustainable, though? Why do you assume that there would be no system to detect people who abuse the system by continually churning companies? Can’t the same thing happen right now with people who have connections to headhunter/recruiting agencies?
Also, if the system has no abuse detection, many people who work in tech for more than a few years should be able to afford gaming a system like this — not just those from rich backgrounds. $10k is not too much money to find if you know you’re guaranteed a 2x return in 60 days.
> And a company is going to take the pay-to-play candidate, because it's easier than running an interview process.
If the pay-to-play system is really producing only “mediocre” hires who churn earlier than candidates hired through the normal interview process, why would a company prefer the pay-to-play process in the long run?
Again, not saying that the platform is good, but I just don’t think your arguments hold up.
Easily. Few people stay at a software engineering job for more than a year or two as it is. I went almost 4 years without staying at one job for more than a year, and not a single recruiter batted an eye the whole time. Hopping jobs with a network of friends buying each other's jobs for big returns would be trivial.
> Can’t the same thing happen right now with people who have connections to headhunter/recruiting agencies?
Yes. But right now it still requires social skills, conversations, and interviews. Skills that anyone can acquire with practice. Turning it into a pay-to-play system doesn't improve anything, it just makes it easier for people with disposable income to skip the line. Or it will make people harass their professional network for money to skip the line. How is that an improved system over just getting to know some recruiters?
> Also, if the system has no abuse detection, many people who work in tech for more than a few years should be able to afford gaming a system like this — not just those from rich backgrounds. $10k is not too much money to find if you know you’re guaranteed a 2x return in 60 days.
You're proving my point. The system as described is ripe for abuse, and what kind of abuse detection mechanism would catch things like this? They didn't describe one, and I can't picture one that isn't extremely invasive. Mild nepotism is already the de facto way that a lot of companies recruit people even though they're not supposed to - add a gambling mechanic into the mix and you can guarantee people will be trying to game it left and right. There's no way they'd be able to crack down on it at scale.
> now trust fund kids with rich friends can continually skip the line and buy the jobs that others are applying for.
I would say this is an accurate description of the current system. What do we always hear, that going to an Ivy League is all about the connections, not the education?
That may be true for management-type positions, but at least in my experience, engineering is somewhat more merit-based. As long as you're good at interviewing you can get a job regardless of who you know. Obviously, having connections still helps, but natural career connections don't require a literal buy-in.
Also, at least Ivy League schools have financial aid programs to help gifted kids from disadvantaged backgrounds still be able to attend.
> people with the ability to afford payment have a higher chance of being hired
That's the other very valid reason that this idea sucks. People from disadvantaged communities now not only have the existing hurdles to face in entering the tech world; now trust fund kids with rich friends can continually skip the line and buy the jobs that others are applying for. And a company is going to take the pay-to-play candidate, because it's easier than running an interview process.