Tut most engineering orgs are terrified of letting a bad hire through so they blindly do whatever the “top” companies do.
Yup, that seems to be it.
As if there's some "secret sauce" to interviewing that all the other shops know except their own.
Yup, that seems to be it.
As if there's some "secret sauce" to interviewing that all the other shops know except their own.
But the bigger point is that - even assuming for the sake of argument that these questions actually do "work", on some leel - they've become such a huge fad that people are just adopting them solely on the basis of authority, without intrinsically understanding why these questions work, or more importantly, how to interpret candidates' responses to them
In other words, they're just following a script. I wouldn't say quite it's on "blind faith", per se (because the companies do have some reputation). But it's not much better than blind faith. Such that this precious quote of yours, from just a few days ago, seems quite apt here:
This practice of blindly adopting ideas just because they work for Google needs to stop.
So I guess the problem with objective-seeming (and often just simply gratuitously hard) "filter" questions like those suggested here is that their real purpose seems to be give the process an appearance of objectivity - "We had a guy in here, his code samples looked great, and he talked a great game and all -- but would ya believe, he totally froze on that Lego robot puzzle question! What a poser!" -- when of course it's never going to be anything of the sort.