I don't really object to content of these exams any more than I'd object to taking the math and linear algebra exam if I were an actuary, or the bar exam if I w

I don't really object to content of these exams any more than I'd object to taking the math and linear algebra exam if I were an actuary, or the bar exam if I were a lawyer. I certainly don't think this is all trivia. It's foundational, but not the sort of thing developers walk around ready to be tested on in their day to day lives. If you suddenly plunked a vector calc or numerical analysis exam in front of a senior actuary, many of them would probably fail, even though they all passed the test at some point. If you suddenly forced experienced lawyers to re-take the bar exam, many would fail, including those who did very well on the bar. Trees, graphs, mathematics, binary? Sure. It's foundational. What I dislike about these "interviews", so much that I have contemplated leaving the field, is that we, as developers, have to take them over and over again, under capricious and arbitrary circumstances. Think about all the exams I mentioned above. They have a proper study path, they are administered consistently, they are graded and evaluated by respected and vetted professionals who will at least attempt to apply similar standards. You get information about what will be tested, you get feedback on how you did. You don't spend studying and preparing only to hear "we've decided not to pursue your (actuarial candidacy/bar candidacy/nursing boards) at this time". That's what makes this all so awful. I feel, after 15+ years, that I've re-taken my fundamentals exam enough times. If it were trivial, that'd be fine, but it takes time and focus to get ready for it, time I'm less and less inclined to spend on it. I think that there is an informal set of rights and responsibilities that evolved over time between exam-based professions and students. I believe that the "tech interview", which is really an exam, has almost all the downsides and none of the positives, none of the protections that evolved in the other fields. The only positive thing I can say is that at least tech doesn't require a very specific degree, unnecessarily long, that can only be obtained by going through certain accredited programs that cost $40k+ a year in tuition (the 3 year law degree at sky high tuition that can only be obtained through certain programs is cartel-like, professional regulatory capture at its very worst). But you know, actuarial exams are rigorous, don't require a specific degree, you can prepare how you like. I'd say that's probably the best model for software. I don't mind studying for this, but I don't want to have to do it over and over, and I'd like some assurances that it will administered properly.