I mean, tons of things alienate me about big tech, but yeah the interview process is definitely up there.
Even for juniors, when I'm involved in an interview (not always, depends on the client), I do not do bullshit rote memorization questions. I pick a few real problems from personal experience, explain the problem, and ask the candidate to reason through a solution. Sometimes with a programming exercise for entry-level people, but I don't bother with that for anyone with more than a few years experience.
I don't even care what solution they come up with. The point is to find out how they think, and critically that they *do* think. I don't need anyone whose solution to any problem is either rote, Googled, or "it can't be done".
This doesn't apply to big tech companies alone. It reflects how the vast majority of the educational, academic, and R&D systems operate (though there are, of course, a few exceptions.) This mentality is deeply ingrained in our culture and shapes our understanding of learning and what 'expertise' is supposed to mean. I have been reading critiques like this for decades, and there seems to be widespread agreement. Yet, there is no indication that we are willing to change the system.
It's not my ego, it's that it's a dumb test. I can take a course and pass the speed test, but does that mean I'm a thought leader? Lol. It doesn't serve anyone. Thank you for speaking out.
I think the interview process is broken in a lot of ways. What you wrote doesn't just apply to big Tech. I worked in higher education for years and the way they interviewed was also pretty ineffective.
Let's get real for a second. Is this ANYTHING like the world we wanted. I'm struggling to laugh or cry here. I was asked to do a SPEED text lol, I have to solve quantum mechanics FAST lol how hired you? Because Einstein would have laughed you away. So who are you looking for lol. We have to stand up to this, or we don't have a voice. This is OUR FUCKING WORLD. It's the people's. Lets stand up and say what we want. Science, everything. Join me here. Erik
Hi Fukitol, yeah, it's silly. I told the recruiter "I like to think first, and you're asking me to react. What in this world of innovation requires 'speed'" Fucking stupid. lol.
I'll guess that top tier talent doesn't matter to big tech. Top execs have set a growth agenda for the company. That seems to mostly require a predatory mind and moving fast and managers who will punish for missing the point.
My two cents, as I’m always searching for a better interview/hiring process—since I don’t believe the current hiring processes by most companies work well unless you’ve had the opportunity to work with someone beforehand and understand their strengths and weaknesses or luck:
Every company follows a hiring process that prioritizes specific skills (due to the volume of candidates and time constraints) while overlooking others. In big tech, for example, coding speed is often prioritized over real-life problem-solving, even though most real-world challenges require thoughtful analysis and strategic thinking before a relatively short coding phase. As you pointed out, this approach frequently alienates experienced professionals, whose strengths lie in solving complex, system-level problems rather than rote memorization or algorithmic speed.
For several reasons, the current interview process has become deeply ingrained in the industry’s identity. First, once an organization becomes successful, it tends to attribute its success to all its processes, rarely questioning whether factors like luck or attracting only a certain kind of candidates who have found a way to master the current interview process. Second, the process is scalable, making it efficient for handling the large number of resumes that companies receive. This system works reasonably well for entry- to mid-level positions but falls short when evaluating senior talent. Adapting it to better suit experienced professionals would require organizations to acknowledge its shortcomings for this category—a difficult step for many.
Change introduces uncertainty, as new processes may initially result in hiring mistakes or disrupt the status quo. Over the years, I’ve observed that bureaucracy and organizational inertia often resist such changes, especially in large companies, where consistency is safer than experimentation with alternatives. This resistance isn’t unique to hiring but extends to other aspects of organizational behavior. Historically, meaningful changes—whether in hiring practices or elsewhere—often occur only when driven by new leadership or external pressures.
Ultimately, the question becomes: What is the real goal of the current hiring process? If the goal is to assemble a team that codes quickly, memorizes well, and solves basic problems efficiently, then the current system works. However, it overlooks that many talented individuals struggle with high-pressure interviews or time-constrained challenges, even though they excel in real-world scenarios.
I believe we still have much to learn about hiring. Many companies still end up hiring employees who are technically unqualified, culturally misaligned, or otherwise unsuitable—a reality that often becomes apparent only after onboarding. Interviews, especially those lasting just a few hours, are inherently limited in assessing qualities like long-term problem-solving, collaboration, and adaptability. Companies must recognize that their rigid, one-size-fits-all hiring systems often exclude highly skilled professionals who don’t conform to their current system.
This is perfect. Thanks. My critique is that the recruiter said "we want you to run a division in Austin, TX" and then asked me to solve problems like an SAT kid in high school. If I was stupid, I would have figured it out by now lol. Who does this? If China has better ideas they will get ahead. A month later I attracted angel investment for a new idea. If I would have stayed to prove to nit wits I could program quickly..... so dumb.
Perfect analysis. For me, I"m more simple lol. I said "no thanks." And they were bugging me to interview. I said "Go fuck yourself, tell whoever you report to I said that, and you should be off the hook sweetheart." lol. We need to expose this. No wonder we have no real innovation.
I am terrible at taking the interview type you defined in your post. I found almost all my jobs because someone worked with me somewhere and referred me. So, the interview process was generally more about what I had done, when I could join, and my salary expectations than any coding test, etc. Also, I think Charlie Munger is right primarily with the below, as whenever I tried this for experienced hires, I have more success:
“Excesses of self-regard often cause bad hiring decisions because employers grossly overappraise the worth of their own conclusions that rely on impressions in face to face contact. The correct antidote to this sort of folly is to underweigh face-to-face impressions and overweigh the applicant’s past record. Because man is likely to be overinfluenced by face-to-face impressions that, by definition, involve his active participation, a job candidate who is a marvelous presenter often causes great danger under modern executive search practice.“
Hiring in the renewable energy sector does not work this way at all. However, companies in my industry tend to be smaller and more modestly capitalized, and the skills need to complete projects very heterogeneous and multi-disciplinary. Relationships are as important as qualifications once you've been around for a while.
My interview strategy has always been to try to ask the employer more questions than they ask me.
Just a point of comparison. Renewable energy is a "tech" industry, but is construction focused and companies in the space don't scale in the same way as software focused companies. It might be worth considering how interview practices might have something to do with an industry's business model and internal practices, not just acculturated business attitudes. Is the issue you describe entirely the result of contemporary tech culture, or does the ethos have something to do with how software-oriented businesses behave at scale? If the latter, then what are those factors? Sorry, I'll delete the comment if it bothers you.
I mean, tons of things alienate me about big tech, but yeah the interview process is definitely up there.
Even for juniors, when I'm involved in an interview (not always, depends on the client), I do not do bullshit rote memorization questions. I pick a few real problems from personal experience, explain the problem, and ask the candidate to reason through a solution. Sometimes with a programming exercise for entry-level people, but I don't bother with that for anyone with more than a few years experience.
I don't even care what solution they come up with. The point is to find out how they think, and critically that they *do* think. I don't need anyone whose solution to any problem is either rote, Googled, or "it can't be done".
This doesn't apply to big tech companies alone. It reflects how the vast majority of the educational, academic, and R&D systems operate (though there are, of course, a few exceptions.) This mentality is deeply ingrained in our culture and shapes our understanding of learning and what 'expertise' is supposed to mean. I have been reading critiques like this for decades, and there seems to be widespread agreement. Yet, there is no indication that we are willing to change the system.
It never gets changed. And we need to start speaking out.
It's not my ego, it's that it's a dumb test. I can take a course and pass the speed test, but does that mean I'm a thought leader? Lol. It doesn't serve anyone. Thank you for speaking out.
I think the interview process is broken in a lot of ways. What you wrote doesn't just apply to big Tech. I worked in higher education for years and the way they interviewed was also pretty ineffective.
Let's get real for a second. Is this ANYTHING like the world we wanted. I'm struggling to laugh or cry here. I was asked to do a SPEED text lol, I have to solve quantum mechanics FAST lol how hired you? Because Einstein would have laughed you away. So who are you looking for lol. We have to stand up to this, or we don't have a voice. This is OUR FUCKING WORLD. It's the people's. Lets stand up and say what we want. Science, everything. Join me here. Erik
Hi Fukitol, yeah, it's silly. I told the recruiter "I like to think first, and you're asking me to react. What in this world of innovation requires 'speed'" Fucking stupid. lol.
I'll guess that top tier talent doesn't matter to big tech. Top execs have set a growth agenda for the company. That seems to mostly require a predatory mind and moving fast and managers who will punish for missing the point.
My two cents, as I’m always searching for a better interview/hiring process—since I don’t believe the current hiring processes by most companies work well unless you’ve had the opportunity to work with someone beforehand and understand their strengths and weaknesses or luck:
Every company follows a hiring process that prioritizes specific skills (due to the volume of candidates and time constraints) while overlooking others. In big tech, for example, coding speed is often prioritized over real-life problem-solving, even though most real-world challenges require thoughtful analysis and strategic thinking before a relatively short coding phase. As you pointed out, this approach frequently alienates experienced professionals, whose strengths lie in solving complex, system-level problems rather than rote memorization or algorithmic speed.
For several reasons, the current interview process has become deeply ingrained in the industry’s identity. First, once an organization becomes successful, it tends to attribute its success to all its processes, rarely questioning whether factors like luck or attracting only a certain kind of candidates who have found a way to master the current interview process. Second, the process is scalable, making it efficient for handling the large number of resumes that companies receive. This system works reasonably well for entry- to mid-level positions but falls short when evaluating senior talent. Adapting it to better suit experienced professionals would require organizations to acknowledge its shortcomings for this category—a difficult step for many.
Change introduces uncertainty, as new processes may initially result in hiring mistakes or disrupt the status quo. Over the years, I’ve observed that bureaucracy and organizational inertia often resist such changes, especially in large companies, where consistency is safer than experimentation with alternatives. This resistance isn’t unique to hiring but extends to other aspects of organizational behavior. Historically, meaningful changes—whether in hiring practices or elsewhere—often occur only when driven by new leadership or external pressures.
Ultimately, the question becomes: What is the real goal of the current hiring process? If the goal is to assemble a team that codes quickly, memorizes well, and solves basic problems efficiently, then the current system works. However, it overlooks that many talented individuals struggle with high-pressure interviews or time-constrained challenges, even though they excel in real-world scenarios.
I believe we still have much to learn about hiring. Many companies still end up hiring employees who are technically unqualified, culturally misaligned, or otherwise unsuitable—a reality that often becomes apparent only after onboarding. Interviews, especially those lasting just a few hours, are inherently limited in assessing qualities like long-term problem-solving, collaboration, and adaptability. Companies must recognize that their rigid, one-size-fits-all hiring systems often exclude highly skilled professionals who don’t conform to their current system.
This is perfect. Thanks. My critique is that the recruiter said "we want you to run a division in Austin, TX" and then asked me to solve problems like an SAT kid in high school. If I was stupid, I would have figured it out by now lol. Who does this? If China has better ideas they will get ahead. A month later I attracted angel investment for a new idea. If I would have stayed to prove to nit wits I could program quickly..... so dumb.
Perfect analysis. For me, I"m more simple lol. I said "no thanks." And they were bugging me to interview. I said "Go fuck yourself, tell whoever you report to I said that, and you should be off the hook sweetheart." lol. We need to expose this. No wonder we have no real innovation.
I am terrible at taking the interview type you defined in your post. I found almost all my jobs because someone worked with me somewhere and referred me. So, the interview process was generally more about what I had done, when I could join, and my salary expectations than any coding test, etc. Also, I think Charlie Munger is right primarily with the below, as whenever I tried this for experienced hires, I have more success:
“Excesses of self-regard often cause bad hiring decisions because employers grossly overappraise the worth of their own conclusions that rely on impressions in face to face contact. The correct antidote to this sort of folly is to underweigh face-to-face impressions and overweigh the applicant’s past record. Because man is likely to be overinfluenced by face-to-face impressions that, by definition, involve his active participation, a job candidate who is a marvelous presenter often causes great danger under modern executive search practice.“
Hiring in the renewable energy sector does not work this way at all. However, companies in my industry tend to be smaller and more modestly capitalized, and the skills need to complete projects very heterogeneous and multi-disciplinary. Relationships are as important as qualifications once you've been around for a while.
My interview strategy has always been to try to ask the employer more questions than they ask me.
good for you? lol. what's the point of the comment?
Just a point of comparison. Renewable energy is a "tech" industry, but is construction focused and companies in the space don't scale in the same way as software focused companies. It might be worth considering how interview practices might have something to do with an industry's business model and internal practices, not just acculturated business attitudes. Is the issue you describe entirely the result of contemporary tech culture, or does the ethos have something to do with how software-oriented businesses behave at scale? If the latter, then what are those factors? Sorry, I'll delete the comment if it bothers you.
Indeed.