[npsimons]

While this seems "spot on" at first glance, I can tell you that when I interviewed at Google and Amazon (two years ago), it wasn't anywhere near this bad. Both places asked what might seem like contrived technical questions, but the thing is, you have to pick something that can be tested in an hour (or less). That, and it's not the answer that matters, but more your process of working a problem. They didn't seem to care too much about experience with specific tools. I guess it depends on the organization, and I can see how many places would be much worse. My question is, if they care so much about experience with specific tools, why do they even get to an in-person interview with someone who doesn't have it on their resume?

[slurgfest]

Hiring practices of Google and Amazon are very unrepresentative of smaller companies and more heavily emphasize general intelligence, prestigious background and background in computer science. As you say, it's about the process of working a problem more than experience with specific tools.

However, most companies are smaller than Google and Amazon and have different practices. Sometimes, stupid practices, because the interviewers don't really know how to do it, just want to get it over with, or really care about things which aren't important.

But since they are in the hiring position and assume they and their company are awesome, they are not so likely to question their own technical or interviewing abilities and certainly don't want to hear what interviewees have to say about it.

You need additional insights beyond just doing the job to understand what makes someone else useful in that job. And if you don't even have that much, you are guaranteed to ask stupid questions and end up with people selected for how good they are at selling and how much you think they're cool.

[TheCapn]

My experience with Amazon was similar but at the end I was led to ask: "if the 1hr filter process isn't efficient at finding the best candidates, why do they do it?"

I think in the end its a balance of basic filtering vs. HR requirements. The process has to be objective and quantifiable so they're covered in the event of anyone calling foul play. Everyone gets the same treatment and there is a paper trail of reasons for why they turned you down.

[slurgfest]

The process only has to look objective and quantifiable. Everyone doesn't get the same treatment, but it's not actionable if the differences are all deniable and have rationalizations like 'culture fit'. People can and do still hire who they want for whatever reason, they just claim some objective reason for it.

[TheCapn]

Ah yes, I completely agree. I really should have clarified by the HR part in that it is meant for HR's use and not the actual hiring manager/interviewer. If they want to sabotage the interview or otherwise they still can; its just harder to prove-if at all