And furthermore, an instance of the more general case of 'unverifiable claim.' The list doesn't stop there, either.
The first paragraph is a misleading hypothetical. You're left to infer the statistic from the author's anecdote. The new guy can't code? Is that every new guy? One in a hundred? How would you know that his first paragraph says anything at all? In the absence of making a factual claim, the author is trying to inflame passions.
"It's a big problem...[because] there's a boom on." Really? A boom? And then the "50 times more productive" trope? Then "negative productivity?" Ah. This time, the payoff is actually stated: "terrible mistake," "catastrophic company-killer" that "happen[s] so often." LOOK! THE BOOGEYMAN IS RIGHT HERE!
And then, Microsoft's fault. Of course. What isn't? It's here that we find that 'unverifiable claim' is just one of many classes of things that the author is using as a means to pander. Certainly, MS's interview tactics might have worked when initially introduced. Certainly they may have become a fad, and ineffective through overuse and the mere passage of time. But "fault" is a complex thing, and ultimately of little use, here. What if this was a deliberate plan by MS to wreck interviewing forever? So what? It gets you nowhere, except indignant, which is what the author seems to be counting on.
The article just goes on (and on) in this fashion. I won't bore you, but, now that you've got an idea of what the author is doing, go back to the article and find every spurious or unverifiable claim and ask yourself, "What could the author be trying to accomplish since he's clearly not trying to relate factual knowledge?" (Remember that the author included 9 links in as many paragraphs.)
The article is flippant, and is written in a breezy we-all-know-it's-true voice. It's apparently a moot point how tripe like this front-pages, but, with a little work, you can learn to quickly sift through crap like this and move on to meatier fare.
Agree. I've had professors that were uber hackers, prolific authors, grant magnets, inspiring educators and thorough gentlemen to boot. That's a lot of 'getting things done'.
The Techcrunch definition of getting something done is being on their blog: you've announced a (fill buzzword here) product, gotten cash, made a presentation that shows you had potential, said something about an IPO or otherwise drawn their attention. Hard core academics are in the business or startup space: they're starting their research.
To the extent that there is a problem here, it's because academia optimizes for getting different things done than businesses do. It takes even smart people a little while to make the psychological switch-over, the more so since most of them, and their bosses, don't realize the need. It is just another kind of cost for new hires, like their learning your technology stack and coding conventions.
