I feel for you - my advice is not to let it get you down.
I think an important factor in these interviews is the emphasis on talent in software development. Don't get me wrong - I don't deny its importance, it's more that I question the nature of the beast. To me talent is instinct, a feel for what you're doing, and the 'right' type of thinking for the thing. It's pretty obvious when somebody has it (or doesn't), and I think obvious whether you have it too if you're honest with yourself about it.
Tech interviews emphatically do not test for this. Nor do they, I believe, test for smartness; I think once you hit a certain level of intelligence the rest is far more preparation and experience (and yes I'm getting Malcolm Gladwell on your ass) - so all a failed interview indicates is (assuming you are an at least moderately talented, moderately intelligent candidate) one or more of the following:-
* Lack of preparation (knowing the stuff, and practicing the stuff)
* Poor/incorrectly focused preparation
* Lack of confidence
* Bad luck - e.g. haven't looked at binary search for x years they ask about it, or what Steve Yegge termed the 'interview anti-loop'[1] - basically the guy interviewing you just doesn't like you and that's that.
The biggest problem with these things is that people (and I'm kind of talking to myself here more than anyone) take these things personally and put it down to some idea of talent that you might just lack. Fuck that.
The problem is that - and I'm risking repeating a well-known cliche here - hiring good people is extremely hard, and a false positive is way more damaging than a false negative. It is right, IMHO, that (good) companies probe algos, os fundamentals, etc. as this stuff matters; however failing an interview emphatically does not mean you suck.
I think an important factor in these interviews is the emphasis on talent in software development. Don't get me wrong - I don't deny its importance, it's more that I question the nature of the beast. To me talent is instinct, a feel for what you're doing, and the 'right' type of thinking for the thing. It's pretty obvious when somebody has it (or doesn't), and I think obvious whether you have it too if you're honest with yourself about it.
Tech interviews emphatically do not test for this. Nor do they, I believe, test for smartness; I think once you hit a certain level of intelligence the rest is far more preparation and experience (and yes I'm getting Malcolm Gladwell on your ass) - so all a failed interview indicates is (assuming you are an at least moderately talented, moderately intelligent candidate) one or more of the following:-
* Lack of preparation (knowing the stuff, and practicing the stuff)
* Poor/incorrectly focused preparation
* Lack of confidence
* Bad luck - e.g. haven't looked at binary search for x years they ask about it, or what Steve Yegge termed the 'interview anti-loop'[1] - basically the guy interviewing you just doesn't like you and that's that.
The biggest problem with these things is that people (and I'm kind of talking to myself here more than anyone) take these things personally and put it down to some idea of talent that you might just lack. Fuck that.
The problem is that - and I'm risking repeating a well-known cliche here - hiring good people is extremely hard, and a false positive is way more damaging than a false negative. It is right, IMHO, that (good) companies probe algos, os fundamentals, etc. as this stuff matters; however failing an interview emphatically does not mean you suck.
[1]:http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2008/03/get-that-job-at-goog...