Ask HN: Is it unfair to reject senior candidates based on their language skills?

If grammar counts, say so up front. In other situations correct language, proofreading, and concern for detail have been held to be racist, supremacist, or at least arrogant; so over the past few years many may have re-tuned the way they communicate in writing by default.

It's not unfair. If someone isn't fluent in English how are they going to be fluent in code? Fluency is also an indicator of thought, reasoning and critical thinking ability etc. It's the bare minimum a 'senior' candidate should be capable of.

I sometimes run into someone who has a lot of trouble speaking English and it is honestly frustrating. If English is their first language then that is a bit of a red flag. However, in cases of developers who speak English as a second or third language, I've often found it often has nothing to do with their intelligence or competence. Some of the fastest learners and most promising people I've worked with started out barely speaking English.

Is it fair to require good communication skills on an interview? I would probably say so. However, you may miss out on some excellent candidates. Best of luck in your hiring!

You're building a team. If someone doesn't have the communication skills (or exemption) necessary, then choose a better candidate.

A candidate who can't communicate effectively seems unlikely to be of interest to you, right? If their communications don't clearly tell you about their past experiences and skills relevant to your needs, I don't think you need to overthink this.

When I am on hiring committees at my org, I always come up with a simple rubric to screen applicants and narrow down who we want to include in the process going forward. It is a very simple rubric, usually just "Yes/No" answers to questions related to the needs of the position. We can usually use these rubrics to stack rank applicants and interview top candidates.

We do get some simply terrible cover letters or email communications from candidates (both native and non-native English speakers). These are usually so bad that the candidates in question don't get past the rubric anyway . . .

In my experience, there is definitely a correlation at the least. In today's world, unfortunately there are a lot of options available for people with great communication (written and verbal) skills and employers can choose. I am not talking about Accents but if you cannot formulate a coherent, grammatically correct sentence, you will probably do lousy work. I have seen it enough at least in my case to make that assumption. Also, not everyone needs to be a native English Speaker (I am not one myself). So this is not a racist thing either. It is simple facts of life.

Even for hardocre programming roles, you need to be able to ask questions no matter how junior you are.

When I see a Resume with obvious typos and grammar issues, I usually skip unless it seemed like a genuine one off mistake and I have spoken to that candidate already.

It is unfair to reject candidates over qualities they have no control over such as gender, weight (well...), height, race, age, etc. It is not unfair to reject candidates over qualities they can control such as the number of spelling errors in their resume. Spell-checkers exist for a reason.

Not if they need to communicate with customers or are responsible for ‘selling’ ideas internally

These errors foretell the quality of work you can expect from them. Senior people usually know what to do about the red squiggly line under words and phrases in their editor of choice. Beyond that most basic use of technical knowledge and lack of attention to important but simple details, their inability to notice how poorly they communicate indicates that you can expect a LOT of problems comprehending complex requirements and communication with other staff, and the business as a whole.

So no, it is not unfair. It is quite diligent.

your first paragraph already has shitty grammar so GTFO of here.

No. It is unfair to everyone to take someone who can’t do the job.