[ssharp]

This is still a big flaw in the hiring process.

Much like standardized tests are meant to assess objective aptitude but invariably favor those who specifically prepare for the test, which diminishes their objectivity, these types of interviews vastly favor those who specifically prepare for these types of interviews.

The exact same pattern happens with product managers. There are very specific types of interviews and there is an entire industry built around preparing candidates for these types of interviews. At that point, is the interview process still effective? I'm certain there is a pool of fully-capable people out there being left behind in sub-optimal careers for no other reason than they've underestimated or are ignorant of the need to prepare for an interview exercise that is, at best, loosely related to the work they'd actually do.

I suppose the counter-argument would be that good candidates should be able to figure out what they need to do to successfully complete a task, and properly understanding and gaming the interview process showcases that skill.

[wreath]

> Much like standardized tests are meant to assess objective aptitude but invariably favor those who specifically prepare for the test, which diminishes their objectivity, these types of interviews vastly favor those who specifically prepare for these types of interviews.

But those who prepare for system design interviews are most likely better equipped to design systems in real life too, because they had to go through the different problems and types of systems and their requirements. Now that doesn't mean they can implement it end-to-end, but you could probably tell those who are over-engineering it from those who actually either have experience or solid foundation to make good decisions.