- The ability to perform on audition day doesn't necessarily correlate with the abilty to perform consistently in concert settings. - Great solo players aren't always great ensemble players. - It is very difficult to predict how an auditionee will mature over time.
That said, our field has yet to come up with anything better, and I think the organization I work for has developed a particularly good screening process:
On audition day, applicants are asked to perform some excerpts from literature our organization plays regularly, a prepared solo selection, and to do some sight-reading. This is pretty standard stuff for the clasical music industry and this preliminary round is done from behind a screen to help combat biases on the part of the panel. The excerpts are important because that's closest to the work applicants will be doing on a day to day basis if selected. The prepared solo helps show the candidates potential to excel in solo situations. The sight reading is crucial because it is a basic and necessary skill and correlates very highly with the applicant's quality of musical training.
The second round (generally 5-15 applicants from the initial pool of about 100) is where our organization does things a little differently. It consists of more excerpts and sight-reading, but this time applicants are asked to make adjustments to how they performed the selections (a little faster or slower, a little louder or softer, etc.). Observing how the candidates respond to these requests shows how nimble the musicians will be in a rehearsal setting, and also shows how well-prepared they are and how well they will take direction.
In the final round (generally 2-5 candidates), applicants are asked to perform alongside members of our organization. This demonstrates more responsiveness, how well the applicant listens, and how well the candidate performs in a group setting.
With that in mind, I often wonder why those looking to hire developers don't use a multi-stage "audition" process.
Step one could consist of some thing along the lines of "Here's a piece of code like what you might see in our organization. There's a bug in it. Find and fix the bug and send the revised code back to us." Step one could also consist of a short puzzle-type problem. Step one could be 100% automatic and would require the same amount of time for 100 applicants as it would for 1000 applicants.
Step two could be where applicants are asked to show samples of something they've coded in the past. This could also be where they are asked to perform a more difficult bug fix and a more difficult puzzle. In this round, applicants are told that their code will be read for documentation quality and use of good style.
Finally a final round could be done in-person where an applicant is asked to solve a problem with existing members of the team. This could be done in conjunction with one on one interview. This would help tell if the candidate is someone the team actually would enjoy working with, and how the candidate would be able to contribute.
I know I wouldn't mind submitting to such an application process because I could see how each step is relevant to what the company is looking for. It also shows that the company takes hiring seriously. Hiring is supposed to be hard. Knowing that every one else on the team has been able to excel in those circumstances gives me greater confidence that I'd be joining a great team.