[piva00]

This is a false dichotomy. Specific theory that is hard (and useless) to memorise all details can be easily referenced if you are knowledgeable enough in a field, if you know about a red-black tree, the gist of its properties you can easily Google usage cases if you've forgotten, examples of it and algorithms related to it (rebalancing, how it relates to search, etc.), if you had never studied, used or seen one there is no way to reference to these properties easily.

I'd much rather hire and work with someone who has the skill to easily assess a situation and use referencing to rebuild knowledge than someone who memorised how to implement tree balancing, so why do we test for the latter rather than the former?

[_0w8t]

Some companies want to test if a person spent time preparing for the interview. So asking all those quiz questions does make sense even if they are no relevant. At least it shows that the person knows the rules of the game and is willing to invest substantial efforts to follow them even if the rules are arbitrary and irrelevant for day-to-day activities.

[slumpt_]

Okay. So arbitrary preparation - when nearly any other professional interview requires little preparation beyond updating your resume - has merit because... rules of the game?

Stop supporting baseless metrics for assessment just because some old person used them before you showed up. We can and should do better.

[_0w8t]

This is how it is with IT companies paying well above average. Given that they are able to pay such salaries this interview strategy is compatible with big profits.

It could be that by changing interview strategy to look more similar to other professions that profit can be increased even farther, but nobody is risking it.

[piva00]

I can use your argument to push to another side: wouldn't this strategy also tell us a huge bias that it is selecting for and presenting itself in tech companies? With that I mean the bias of "learning to play the game", selecting for people that are going to conform to arbitrary rules for their promotions, caring about playing the game instead of analysing the impact of their work?

And I can ask that given the recent issues with data privacy and data abuse by the tech giants, would we be in this place if the interview processes had selected for more holistic engineers, technically able but that refuse to play the game just for the sake of playing the game, that are opinionated and don't conform to something just for the sake of money?

I know that I might be creating a false dichotomy but I would like to think about what kind of pressure this selection process creates, what biases arises from it? How can we make it better?

Because your argument is the most conservative and pro-establishment one: it works so don't touch it and just emulate.

[_0w8t]

I was not arguing for these types of interviews. My point was that one can rationally explain apparently useless quiz questions. And yes, this is a strong selection bias to pick people that agree to play by arbitrary rules without questioning them.

[slumpt_]

I’ve worked at several shops paying well above average with interview processes that hinged on more representative work.

Not everyone is playing the absurdly doofy “game,” just most.

Local maximum that laziness has us trapped in. Nothing to do with merit.