Technical interviews are moving in the direction of more concreteness Herein lies the scam. (Disclaimer: It's not on purpose, they're lying to themselves too)

Technical interviews are moving in the direction of more concreteness Herein lies the scam. (Disclaimer: It's not on purpose, they're lying to themselves too) Just because you have a process to produce a "concrete" result, that doesn't mean it doesn't stand on a house of cards. I'd have to sit and have a think to make a clearer explanation than by analogy, so here's an analogy. This reminds me of the way people with an insufficient anti-authoritarian streak are more willing to question a person's on the spot decision than a decision from systematic, bureaucracy or law. Just because more time and process has gone into establishing them, doesn't necessitate that the decisions are any better founded than what some rando pulls out of their ass. Because, at the end of the day, taking the technical portion of the interview itself too seriously is the real fraud. There is exactly one way to tell how well someone will be able to contribute to our team, with our technologies, in our environment after a few weeks of getting up to speed. And that's to hire them. The technical portion of the interview isn't useful beyond a low-bar rule-out criteria. After that, the technical portion turns back towards the softer skills of how the interviewee handles hitting a wall at problem solving in a field where nobody knows everything.