I'll tell you what we do at this.dot and kind of like why we set this up, right? So, one of the things we do initially is... we look at their resume. If we like their resume, then we send them a set of interview questions; it's like 20 or 30 interview questions, and that assesses team fit. After that we say, okay, cool, let's do a code exercise. We give them a take-home code exercise; if they pass that bar, then we say, okay, let's do a quick fifteen-minute interview, we assess team fit, and then we move on to an actual technical interview. And one of the reasons why we do that is because, you know, we are really trying to encourage, like, less bias in the interview process, and so, we think it's more inclusive. You know, like you can let people win more, you are not judging them first on, like, language barrier, potentially, or, you know, how they look or anything like that.
(link, at 24:50)
Notice how she uses the words inclusive and language barrier in adjacent sentences? This is what got my attention. It used to be gospel that part of computer programmer's job is communication. Both with a computer and with people. And while the computer might have its own opinion about language barriers (it sure doesn't like invalid syntax, the non-inclusive bastard), I can't imagine how a language barrier won't be a concern when communicating with people. She does mention team fit a couple of times — whether this includes the mysterious "culture fit", I have no idea — but how has the linguistic fluency managed to vanish from the fitness criteria, to the point where deliberately ignoring (unbiasing oneself to) potential language obstacles is considered the proper thing to do?