4/34    My dept is short of people. Is it better to recruit the "perfect"
        employee and risk losing development time, or recruit a mediocre
        employee whom we will invest a huge amount of time in training?
        \_ you won't find the perfect employee..he doesn't exist.
           give the underdog a chance.
        \_ how about somebody in between?
        \_ no offense but if you can't make these judgements, maybe you
           shouldn't be the one doing the hiring.
           \_ Note that, from the original post, the possibilities that the
        \_ We went with an 70% guy (95-100% being a perfect person).  Out
              poster is actually performing HR duties, or just collecting
           was as best as we could do, and we don't even have an HR person
              information, are almost identical.
        \_ We went with a 70% guy (95-100% being a perfect person).  Out
           of 30 resumes, we phone screened 10 and interviewed 4.  70%
                \_ Are you sure they're 40%, and not 40.95327%????
           was the best we could do, and we don't even have an HR person
           and ran out of personal contacts.  Two people were 45% and one
           was 55% but had already taken another offer.  Everyone else
           was 40% or below.
        \_ How the hell can you determine one to be a 45, another 55, 70?
           \_ Breast size
           \_ Taos "Clue" test
           \_ Clue.  No written test required.  Also, these numbers are
              suitability for our position, not raw brain cell count
              or aggregate computer knowledge.