There's four excellent examples of things that were better 10 years ago before this practice was instituted. The youngest thing on that list (chrome) is 14 years old.
Both Apple and Google used to not hire in this 3-4 interviews of canned programming question way. Then they did. Those products are now stagnating and deteriorating so much that it's obvious to everyone.
If you think it's exclusively a FAANG practice, you're mistaken. There's tiny firms that do it and really large ones that don't.
Bringing the worst practices of standardized testing into the tech hiring process produces the same kinds of problems that standardized testing does elsewhere. Silicon Valley used to be better than this.
It's a dumb arbitrary ceremony - might as well be a physical challenge from Nickelodeon's Double Dare.
(Also your narrative history is wrong, but that's not the point)
> There's four excellent examples of things that were better 10 years ago before this practice was instituted.
FWIW, I interviewed with Google in 2009 and the interview was 100% pure leetcode (not even design/architecture questions). It was exactly a series of four back-to-back 1-on-1 meetings, which consisted of "Hello" followed by an algorithmic puzzle.
If anything they seem to have broadened the scope of interviews since then.
Alright. I stand corrected. I also went to San Francisco job interviews around 2005 or so and found that. I was turned off by them back then as well.
I'm not a researcher in the field but I'd love to see some study. Let's say measuring for deadline slippage, budget overshot, and retention rate.
The testing groups will be teams that use these tactics almost exclusively and those that use a variety of other methods.
If my assumption that this is a mostly arbitrary attribute is correct, their averages would be nearly the same.
If they produce statistically better results then I'd literally quit my job and go work for one. I'd be happy to be wrong about this but I don't think I am
Monopolies aren't motivated to innovate. (At least not in helpful ways.)
This is why the web is stagnating with near Chrome monopoly, just like during (shudder) the IE years.
Same for Google itself. Bing/DDG are only half-assed competitors. Google seems to be making search worse for all kinds of bad reasons, just because they can.
I'd guess most people who use an alternative to gmail specifically don't want to use Google, not because something else is better.
There's four excellent examples of things that were better 10 years ago before this practice was instituted. The youngest thing on that list (chrome) is 14 years old.
Both Apple and Google used to not hire in this 3-4 interviews of canned programming question way. Then they did. Those products are now stagnating and deteriorating so much that it's obvious to everyone.
If you think it's exclusively a FAANG practice, you're mistaken. There's tiny firms that do it and really large ones that don't.
Bringing the worst practices of standardized testing into the tech hiring process produces the same kinds of problems that standardized testing does elsewhere. Silicon Valley used to be better than this.
It's a dumb arbitrary ceremony - might as well be a physical challenge from Nickelodeon's Double Dare.
(Also your narrative history is wrong, but that's not the point)