Responding to an allegation in MyTechCareerIsDoingJustFineBecauseOfGlobalization that those most affected by globalism of IT "interview poorly":

Well, it makes sense that those more likely to be out of work "interview poorly". I generally interview poorly because I am nervous as hell during interviews. Yet I usually get pretty good reviews on the job (the few complaints tend to be non-technical issues). Thus, I don't take my poor interview ability as a sign that I am rotten to the core. It is a ChickenOrEgg or self-fulfilling prophecy kind of problem. Sure, those with bad teeth, etc. will probably be the first to get kicked by globalism. That is not surprising. You also suggested that those wanting to move from an existing job interview better. This is probably because they have more confidence and less at stake during that time. If the same person were out of work for a year or so I bet their confidence would be down, or at least their interview would appear different in comparison. But, that does not mean globalism won't get worse and spread to slicker people also. (Although, I suppose the socially slick are more likely to move into management.) -- AnonymousDonor

Let me clarify: when I state that those candidates that I recognize as downturn victims (I do not accept your finessing that into "affected by globalism", by the way) interview badly, what I mean is that, despite claiming a couple of years of Java experience, they perform very badly on the technical questions we put to them. I mean that despite describing themselves as experienced "oo developers" and competent users of UML they struggle to get through a simple modelling exercise we set, I mean that they show no signs of being good abstractors, have no knowledge of even the most common patterns, etc. etc. etc. Some of them also have bad teeth (but then I'm British, bad teeth don't worry me), but that pales into insignificance versus their inability to demonstrate skill or knowledge as developers. -- KeithBraithwaite

Okay, but I would note that only about 50 percent of the places I have interviewed at even ask detailed technical questions, and the most of these just ask one to remember function/method names. Maybe 1/5 ask for code samples, and only once have I been asked to do a hands-on project.

By the way, how can one get hands-on skills without being given the chance? If you keep hiring experienced people over and over rather than a newbie, the newbies will never get a chance to enter.

Well, what can I say? Here at WDS we ask candidates to provide answers to some technical questions (and not ones that can be answered by searching Javadoc), we get candidates to talk through some technical issues, and we get them to pair for a few hours. 

Notice that I did ''not'' state that we hire only "experienced" developers. We look instead for demonstrable ''skill'' and ''knowledge'', which are all too often orthogonal to years worked. -- KB
    
You do realize that each company's interview techniques are different. Maybe other companies are more interested in how developers act with people than how "abstract" their classes are.   
I am not saying this is good or bad, only that I know first-hand it happens because I have been interviewed more often than I wish. Some just want to hire a friend to talk to, some are trivia nuts, some are just plain unpredictable.