[ubernostrum]

Tech interviewing is awful. Don't give me excuses for why you do awful things, or try to say "well, it's candidates' fault for having to lie and dissemble to get through the process we created".

Plenty of known-smart, known-qualified people are criticizing tech interview processes. They're criticizing the dehumanizing approaches. They're criticizing the way it wastes the time of everyone involved. They're criticizing the way it produces huge false-negative rates.

And they're right. Many of the people criticizing tech interviewing are precisely the kind of people you say you want to hire but then design processes to exclude. You don't get to shift the blame on that one; if you're really a hiring manager, you should be finding ways to fix, not ways to make excuses for, the tech interview process.

[dimal]

It's possible to do technical interviewing well. I've done a lot of terrible ones, but at my current job the technical interviews were highly relevant to my work, and not trivia or puzzle questions. We used a laptop instead of a whiteboard. And even though I didn't get everything 100% "right", there was plenty of discussion, so they could see that I knew what I was doing. So they offered me a job. It wasn't an easy interview, but it worked well in my case. And since the other members of the team are very good at what they do, it looks like it's worked for the rest of the company as well.