[PragmaticPulp]

When candidates are clearly unable to finish the interview problems even with hints and help, I conclude the technical interview early and transition to an informal discussion of their career, progress, and goals. I don’t think it’s worth compromising your technical interview standards just because you like a candidate. You have those standards for a reason. However, having a friendly conversation with the candidate can at least leave them on good terms and can give them an opportunity to get some light feedback on what’s expected from the job and where they can go to learn it.

[cbreezyyall]

I wouldn't say I'm compromising the tested standards, if they can't do it I'm going to be up front about that. It's just that the expected skill level for a particular role gives candidates an amount of leeway in terms of what's considered 'sufficient'.

That said, I've considered doing what you've suggested, but I worry that comes off too obviously as having given up. I also can't always speak to the expectations of the particular role because it's often not on my team (or department in some cases). There's been times where I have cut the interview short and done something similar, but I'm hesitant to try that on a particularly bad candidate, because I worry I wouldn't be able to stay away from asking how much of their resume is a lie.

[clevernapkins]

I take the opposite approach and almost always finish the full interview. They took the time out of their day to do this and it at least gives them practice. It also leaves the company you're repping in a better light imo

[b20000]

the smugness