[loserpenguin15]

One thing that I think is commonly missing from these discussions about hiring is the fact that most hiring processes (especially at these large companies) are not designed around letting all qualified applicants in. They are designed to ensure that unqualified applicants don't get in, even at the cost of passing up good candidates.

The negative cost associated with one bad hire can often outway the gain from one great higher. So if a company has to pass up on some great candidates in order to maintain quality they are going to do it.

Are there better ways than trivia questions and whiteboard coding to prevent bad hires? Of Course. One of my co-workers brings up the hiring practice at his old job. They would fly all potential candidates out to their office and have them work (paid) with the team for one day. From there, they would take their top picks and have them work (paid) for a week. From that group they would choose who to hire. My co-worker always remarks about how great of a process it was. However they were also only ever hiring for one or two positions a year. When you're trying to hire as many qualified applicants as possible, these kinds of in depth interviews just aren't efficient enough.

So the negative cost of hiring a bad applicant, in addition to the problem of trying to hire as many people as possible with minimal cost leaves us with interview techniques that don't cater to everyone. But they do do a good job of weeding out bad applicants, even if that does mean passing on good applicants.

Now I'm not saying this is the right way to interview, I just think this aspect is commonly left out of these discussions.