> Depends on how you define works. It does effectively filter the people that can't code, but it also filters a lot of people that can code and just can't or don't care to do it under time or environment pressure.

It is much more important for a company to filter out likely low performers than it is to avoid filtering out likely high performers, because the costs of hiring an incompetent person are enormous. Not only do they not produce as much, they eat up others' bandwidth by asking too many questions, implementing super buggy code, or not communicating effectively. They make other people on the team feel like they're not pulling their weight. They're a pain to fire depending on company culture and laws.

This process is designed to overfilter and maintain an A-player roster as much as possible, vs putting butts in seats. It's hard to tell whether the pool is exhausted here - by some indications, there's a lot of attrition but also a lot of hiring...

This is only true for companies that have a large talent pool e.g. FAANG companies. For some small 30 person business in the back of nowhere that wants you in the office 5 days a week they cannot be anywhere near as picky.

I tend to think it's even more true for smaller companies that do not have the margin for too many mistakes. FAANG do not have an all-A cast. They have enough buffer to weather the odd mishire; and they also have enough projects going on that they can find better projects for people based on their strengths. At a small company on the other hand, the wrong hire can be existentially problematic for the business.

Mistakes can be fixed if they are small scale i.e. one bad hire stand out at a small company and can be fired much more easily. What you're missing is that for these small companies they are excluding the best candidates with this process. In terms of bad hires at large companies they are harder to notice and large companies have more process that tends to make firing people harder.

This is why these big companies do it, because it is actually quite hard to be fired from someplace like google whereas at these small companies you'll be working directly with the owners.

Also people will do all these take home tests and 5 rounds of algo interviews and CCAT tests ... etc for large well known companies as it is prestigious to work for them. They literally won't do them for small companies. For small companies unknown companies all you'll get is desperate people you are actually filtering out all the decent candidates. I went through this process last year it's very hard to hire as a small unknown company.

Every job related thread on HN devolves into a bitch fest about interview questions. I don't know how it works at non-FAANGS, but Google gets literally millions of applications per year, and even the maligned FB gets a few hundred thousands. I have yet to hear any workable alternative hiring process that can cope with such volumes. At these companies, the hiring probability for most individuals must by necessity be very low, no matter what kind of interview/hiring process you'd suggest.