I always wonder how Google manages to have so many vanilla Engineers given how high their standards are. I don't think their standards are high in the "needs to be smart" sense, but in regards to all the other BS. Or they must only ask basic data structure (and puzzle) questions that any studious person can memorize the answers to. I don't think knowing the answer to these interview questions correlates with knowing how to do your job well. It only correlates with knowing the answer to these questions.

Then again, they also have some of the best Engineers. But I don't think that's a testament to a great hiring process, as that could be the result of great marketing. The "we allow you the freedom to actually do stuff and to work with the best" type marketing. From what I read/saw, the great Engineers didn't seem that happy, so maybe those marketing claims aren't really true, but perhaps things have changed since then.

There are two kinds of hard though - there's the hard that's hard just because it's boring repetitive work and there's the hard that's hard because it's complex and beautiful and requires an investment in thought and background that not everyone has.

And if you're eliminating the former kind of hard without increasing the latter, then your interviews should get easier. Heck, for people in the latter group it will get easier even if you decrease the former and increase the latter, to a point.

Just because you're not lowering standards doesn't mean your interviews aren't getting easier.

Which is also a thing with exams now I think about it - just because your exam's hard doesn't mean it's worthwhile.

and so applicants will have to figure out the new dance, which is likely to be not so useful yet again.