[giancarlostoro]

> especially when we currently use all kinds of frameworks and libraries that already abstract away implementation details.

This is my issue with algorithm driven interviewing. Even the creator of Homebrew got denied by Google because he couldn't do some binary sort or whatever it even was. He made a tool used by millions of developers, but apparently that's not good enough.

[StilesCrisis]

Google denies qualified people all the time. They would much rather reject a great hire than take a risk on accepting a mediocre one. I feel for him but it's just the nature of the beast. Not everyone will get in.

[beautiful_zhixu]

This language sounds like chauvinism leading to closed-mindedness and efficiency. Of course there are tradeoffs to chauvinism, as Googlers possess the mind to notice. But a Googler does not need to worry about saying ambiguous truths without understanding their emotions to the masses, for they have Google behind them. With the might of the G stick, they can hammer out words with confidence.

[ogogmad]

I've heard this before. Why do you think algorithm questions are effective for finding "good" hires? Are they?

[9rx]

The intent isn't to find good hires per se, but to whittle down the list of applicants to a manageable number in a way that doesn't invite discrimination lawsuits.

Same as why companies in the past used to reject anyone without a degree. But then everyone got a degree, leaving it to no longer be an effective filter, hence things like algorithm tests showing up to fill the void.

Once you've narrowed the list, then you can worry about figuring out who is "good" through giving the remaining individuals additional attention.

[giancarlostoro]

> Same as why companies in the past used to reject anyone without a degree.

They still do, and its a shame some of the smartest most capable developers I know have no degree.

[giancarlostoro]

They certainly don't filter out toxic people who make others leave companies because they poison the well.

[ogogmad]

I have a suspicion that "good candidate" is being gerrymandered. What might have been "good" in 1990 might have become irrelevant in 2000+ or perhaps detrimental. I say that as someone who is actually good at algorithm questions himself. I think GP, as well as other Google defenders, are parroting pseudo-science.

[giancarlostoro]

I agree. But also if it works to get you jobs there, why wouldn't you defend it? I mean I might be inclined to do so as well, it guarantees me a place even if I lack soft skills for the role.