>>Also, part of the point of a Google style interview is to keep pushing you to the point where your ability fails, then push in another direction to the point

>>Also, part of the point of a Google style interview is to keep pushing you to the point where your ability fails, then push in another direction to the point your ability fails. That way, they get an idea of the dimensions of your skill-set. The vast majority of the people I recommended hiring didn't answer the questions perfectly.<< I can't even begin to tell you how valuable I consider this approach to be...pushing (or leading) a candidate in every conceivable direction until failure is reached or limits are exposed... HR professionals in almost any profession would benefit from implementing this technique to the extent that their resources allow...most don't have the luxury of time... Example: As a member of a non-profit board I was once tasked with performing screening interviews for 5 candidates who were applying for a Camp Ranger position at one of the organization's youth camps... I was not an HR expert then (or now), so I jotted down a few interview questions and scheduled interviews with the candidates...each one to begin at 8:00am at the site, and to last as long as it took...one per day... I simply walked around the site, visited with the candidates, asked about their experience, and did everything I could to encourage them to "reveal" themselves... I eliminated 2 candidates by around 10:00am, 2 more around 11:00am, and ended up driving to town for a burger lunch with the 5th...I later recommended the fifth... He was hired, and ended up doing an incredible job... I ended up giving other board members the impression that I knew what I was doing...at the time I most certainly did not...but I filed that lesson away... I am convinced that a commitment to open-ended interview time, combined with "soft" skills probing, are critical if you want to properly evaluate candidates...