No, they shouldn't be as hard as the hardest you'll do on the job, because what is hard on the job has nothing to do with the real issue with an interview: a 30-60 minute window between solution and problem statement.
I have been programming professionally for about two decades. Algorithms? Easy, there are a lot of papers, and The Art of Programming for that. Designing something completely novel? I'll be looking at it for a long time before I can trust it. Performance optimizations? I'll count cycles if I have to. A little bit of time fixes all of it.
So what is actually hard about programming? Making sure my system is observable, so that when there is a problem, I know what is going on within seconds, if not minutes. Building a system that self heals. Making API decisions that I will not rue in 6 months to a year. Helping a coworker figure out a more sensible architecture without turning it into a pissing contest, or having to pull rank.
How can I actually show ANY of the hardest things I'll do on the job in that short amount of time? I can't. In practice, I get my best salaries, where I am the most valued, either the second time around in a place, or when, either through someone on the inside or well know third party references tell the prospective employer what I can actually do.
I have worked with amazing people that I'd never refer to a company that is trying to do this google-derived interview style, because what really matters in that interview is first, the 10 second likeability, second, to read the cues on what the interviewer is thinking of what you are saying, so you can change course if he is not liking you, and third, the ability to think on your feet fast enough while you are getting the other two things done. Someone that takes 6 hours looking at a problem but comes back with an amazing, production-grade solution every time is not welcome there, because they will always get culled.
So the problem of the interviews Asana is describing is that they can cull some people, but there is no proof whatsoever that anything they are doing correlates at all with the things that really make a good developer. This is great through, as anyone using a better interviewing system will be able to get far better developers on the cheap, as all this SV companies that copy each other just chase the same style of candidate.
I have been programming professionally for about two decades. Algorithms? Easy, there are a lot of papers, and The Art of Programming for that. Designing something completely novel? I'll be looking at it for a long time before I can trust it. Performance optimizations? I'll count cycles if I have to. A little bit of time fixes all of it.
So what is actually hard about programming? Making sure my system is observable, so that when there is a problem, I know what is going on within seconds, if not minutes. Building a system that self heals. Making API decisions that I will not rue in 6 months to a year. Helping a coworker figure out a more sensible architecture without turning it into a pissing contest, or having to pull rank.
How can I actually show ANY of the hardest things I'll do on the job in that short amount of time? I can't. In practice, I get my best salaries, where I am the most valued, either the second time around in a place, or when, either through someone on the inside or well know third party references tell the prospective employer what I can actually do.
I have worked with amazing people that I'd never refer to a company that is trying to do this google-derived interview style, because what really matters in that interview is first, the 10 second likeability, second, to read the cues on what the interviewer is thinking of what you are saying, so you can change course if he is not liking you, and third, the ability to think on your feet fast enough while you are getting the other two things done. Someone that takes 6 hours looking at a problem but comes back with an amazing, production-grade solution every time is not welcome there, because they will always get culled.
So the problem of the interviews Asana is describing is that they can cull some people, but there is no proof whatsoever that anything they are doing correlates at all with the things that really make a good developer. This is great through, as anyone using a better interviewing system will be able to get far better developers on the cheap, as all this SV companies that copy each other just chase the same style of candidate.