[catchmrbharath]

I am not talking about inventing data structures or an algorithm on the spot. It takes some amount of time to find the right data structure and the algorithm. I felt that the interviewers are not ready to give that time.

Say you have not seen a particular dynamic programming problem. It takes some time to get to the fact that there is a recursive solution to it, and then apply DP to it.

For a person who has seen that problem, it doesn't take a lot of time to write the code. While interviewing, you are compared to that person. Nobody takes that extra effort to actually appreciate somebody who thought about the problem and answered it.

For a tech industry that prides itself in hiring the best / most talented, this is ironic.

[yomly]

The thing is, that Amazon/Facebook/Google are in the unique position of having too many applicants, not too few.

This is by no means vindicating their process, merely shedding some light on it. A bit like case studies and consulting...

Edit: though on that note, a good case study will extract / give a candidate the opportunity the opportunity to demonstrate key competencies aligned with consulting, much as in the same way solving some algorithm on the spot is a reasonable proxy for being a good googler. The only problem is it has a high false negative rate...

[jbooth]

They've got an absolute shit-ton of recruiters out there manufacturing those candidates. I've never done an on-site Google interview (never the right timing) but they hit me up once a year trying to drum up interest. And then every one of those drummed-up interview loops takes time from their engineers who could be working on stuff.

They could probably do better for themselves as businesses with an interview process that looked for skills that are necessary to get the job done (not white board big-o olympics) and sufficient to get the job done (not white board big-o olympics).