Earlier quoted context omitted.
My credential represents hundreds of hours of programming projects over several years. For that reason alone it is a much better signal than an interview will ever be. It also establishes depth and breadth of familiarity with a variety of fundamental topics demonstrated through exams and large programming projects: program design, networking, operating systems, security/cryptography, team software engineering practic…
You're not being compared to people who lack hundreds of hours of programming projects. You're being compared to people who have that same experience, either at a worse school, or on their own. Credentials correlate with being good, absolutely. But many, many more people lack credentials than have them. This means that there is a large number of great programmers who don't have them (I think a larger number than who…
I don't think that is quite right. Interviewers claim coding interviews are necessary to weed out the large fraction of our industry that cannot write code at all. If they cannot code, then they did not successfully complete a good undergraduate program's worth of coding projects (they cheated, rode on the coattails of group members, were graded way too easily, or something). Otherwise they can code.
>Strong filtering on credentials harms companies who miss good programmers, and harms programmers who can't get jobs.
On the other hand, strong filtering on whiteboarding unnecessarily filters out people who don't do well under that kind of pressure but may be great programmers given a computer and a more realistic deadline. They also privilege people who have optimized well for whiteboard interviews but may be destructive in the longer term.
Which is why the optimal solution seriously considers both factors. (I'm arguing with you because you called credentials influencing hiring a "bad" thing).