[sidlls]

You're not getting any insight into the candidate's problem solving ability in general, though. You may be getting insight into how they think about a specific class of algorithmic problems, and possibly (although it's unlikely) algorithmic problems in general.

What this interview question does is confirm your own biases regarding what "algorithmic thinking" is and little more.

[mhandley]

Of course you're correct, and this is why such a question only forms a part of such an interview. I'm much more interested in what someone has built. We'll have a good discussion about any software they've built, and what they found interesting or difficult about that. Or basically anything where they showed creativity.

Still, in my area of CS, algorithmic thinking is an important aspect of the sort of systems we design, so this sort of question does help me build up a picture of the person's skills and approach to problems.

I have found though that there's pretty good correlation between how someone goes about answering this question (the mental process they follow, not whether they can jump to a solution), and how interesting the systems they've previously built are. And, although my sample size is small, the people who did best on this question also did best over the next few years on the systems they built and analyzed during their PhD.

[Bromskloss]

How does one, then, get an insight into the candidate's problem-solving ability in general?

[sidlls]

By working with them on a number of non-trivial problems over the course of some time, usually measurable in weeks or months at least.

[Bromskloss]

OK, I wholeheartedly agree with that. I was thinking, though, that discussing a problem such as the one with the linked list at least would give one sample point of the candidate's ability to reason. In any case, what are you supposed to do if you are restricted to making your decision based on interviews?

[sidlls]

It is a data point, but of questionable value generally. Consider this: even academic settings give students multiple chances to demonstrate their true level of competence over a course of months in a very constrained subject and a highly controlled setting. I don't think it's rational to think a panel of interviewers can do it in a matter of hours.

I think interviews are basically just a way we fool ourselves into thinking what is essentially a random chance biased by a self-selected set of applicants is (relatively) more objective.

I don't know that there is a good alternative. I am quite sure the status quo is thoroughly broken.