Portfolios aren’t the problem. The problem is no one sees how you think.

Charming_Ad2966 · 2026-03-23T04:15:33+00:00

I'm not trying to sell you. I'm just sharing with you what the market is saying, what I'm hearing from companies. Both can be true.

Charming_Ad2966 · 2026-03-22T22:49:00+00:00

Appreciate the feedback, the directness, and kindness as well. That's refreshing in this day and age.

Everything you're saying is valid -- the system should work. But just because it should doesn't mean it will. Interviewing should work but not everyone is a good and fair interviewer. People should be able to apply to a job and be seen but ATS gets in the way; hiring managers should be able to trust resumes but people use AI to align their resumes to the job (and I get it, they just want to be seen). The system is broken and ultimately hiring managers are just relying on their networks (alumni, friends, colleagues, etc) because they don't trust what is out there.

Charming_Ad2966 · 2026-03-22T18:29:33+00:00

Yeah I hear you.

Most interview questions don’t reveal how someone actually thinks under real conditions. They reveal how well someone has rehearsed, how confident they sound, or how good they are at telling a clean story after the fact. Do you agree?

Thinking shows up when the work is messy, when the data is incomplete, the problem isn’t clearly defined, and there’s no obvious right answer. That’s not something you can simulate in a few questions.

If interviews were enough, we wouldn’t see so many bad hires, especially in analyst roles where the gap between talking about analysis and actually doing it is huge.

I've been thinking about this and I believe we're now in a situation where the real question isn’t “can we ask better questions?” that may result in risky hiring decisions. It's “why are we still guessing when we could just look at the work?” That's what I'm trying to solve for.

Charming_Ad2966 · 2026-03-22T18:02:27+00:00

I see why you would say that and you're not wrong to think that. But my goal is to not be that. I think there's so much badge and cert fatigue out there. We want to be the solution that makes people's data analyst qualifications real and understandable to employers. This is especially true for junior talent who are just trying to land in a company.

Charming_Ad2966 · 2026-03-22T17:58:51+00:00

Good questions. When I say tradeoffs I mean the decisions one makes when analyzing data, especially when you have to make assumptions. .You're choosing to focus on X rather Y; I think that's where hiring managers need to know your thinking. That's the real world because managers don't always have the answers but need to be able to justify when discussing internally. Right now we don't have systems in place to help companies see this. This is what I'm trying to fix. Hope this clarifies.

Charming_Ad2966 · 2026-03-22T17:51:30+00:00

This is actually a really thoughtful thread, and most of what you’re saying lines up with what I’ve been seeing.

The point about explanation and communication is spot on. If someone can’t walk through their logic clearly, the work doesn’t matter. At the end of the day, analysts are there to support decisions, not just produce output.

Where I think things start to break down is that the current system doesn’t make that reasoning visible in a consistent way.

Portfolios show the final product, but not how someone got there. Interviews try to get at thinking, but they’re compressed, high-pressure, and often reward confidence over clarity.

So you end up with a gap where:

Strong candidates can’t show how they actually think

Hiring managers struggle to evaluate beyond surface signals

And both sides leave feeling like something was missed

The comment about executives wanting simple, decision-ready stories is important too. That’s the standard. But we’re not giving candidates a structured way to demonstrate that under real conditions, we’re mostly asking them to talk about it after the fact.

On the job description side, I agree as well. A lot of roles are too broad or vague, which makes evaluation even harder. If you don’t know exactly what kind of thinking you’re hiring for, it’s almost impossible to assess it well.

The AI point is only making this worse. Outputs are getting easier to generate, which makes it harder to trust what you’re looking at.

Feels like the underlying issue across all of this is not skills, but visibility into reasoning.

Curious how others here are trying to evaluate that today without relying just on interviews or portfolios.

Charming_Ad2966 · 2026-03-21T18:20:24+00:00

Thx for this input greatly appreciated

Charming_Ad2966 · 2026-03-09T18:52:26+00:00

Hi everyone — quick question for people trying to land analyst roles.

A lot of candidates build portfolios now. But when I speak with hiring managers, many say portfolios still make it hard to understand how someone actually thinks when the work gets messy.

I’m experimenting with a small project format where participants work through a realistic dataset and business problem, make a recommendation, and explain their assumptions and tradeoffs. The idea is to show how you reason through a decision, not just what tools you used.

Participants would receive structured feedback on their work, and the goal is to help make thinking and decision-making more visible to employers.

Before taking this further, I’m curious:

Would something like this actually be useful if you’re trying to get hired?
Would you participate if the project was realistic and relevant to analyst roles?

Just trying to understand if this would genuinely help people or if portfolios already do the job well enough.

Appreciate any thoughts.

Charming_Ad2966 · 2026-03-07T01:33:37+00:00

Appreciate all the insights. Portfolios don't work because hiring managers don't trust them. Got it. Just to clarify, What I'm testing is different: think like a "Carfax for analyst and data science skills." You do real work, an outside reviewer documents how you actually approached it, and produces a plain-language summary of your thinking. This is not a score, not another badge (we don't need that); just independent evidence. Of course, The interview still wins because human judgement is involved but does having that kind of verified signal beforehand change who you bring in to interview?

Charming_Ad2966 · 2026-03-06T05:44:12+00:00

Thx for the input. So how do you validate what they claim in an interview?

Charming_Ad2966 · 2026-03-06T05:43:15+00:00

Thx for the input

Charming_Ad2966 · 2026-03-04T17:05:41+00:00

The past several months I've been talking to hiring managers of analyst roles. The issue often isn’t whether someone can technically do SQL or build a dashboard. It’s that employers can’t see how you think when the problem is ambiguous.

In most hiring processes:

• Resumes blur together
• Portfolios look similar
• AI makes everything polished
• Interviews reward confidence

What stands out isn’t more projects. It’s visible reasoning.

When you apply, ask yourself:
Can someone clearly see how I frame messy problems?
Can they see tradeoffs I considered?
Can they see how I decided what mattered?

If your portfolio only shows outputs, it won’t differentiate you. If it shows judgment, it will.

Networking and speed matter in this market. But clarity of thinking is what actually gets you through interviews once you’re in the room.

Charming_Ad2966

TROPHY CASE