I find this article one-sided and too exaggerated. In reality, the sad state is, in my opinion, confluence of the following forces: 1) HR people more often th

I find this article one-sided and too exaggerated. In reality, the sad state is, in my opinion, confluence of the following forces: 1) HR people more often than not have barely any clue about the topic. They must, unfortunately, play this charade because if they knew the topic they wouldn't be working in HR. 2) The technical people who prepare the questions typically believe they are too busy to spend time thinking about the problem and instead decide to settle on any test. The assumption is that a good candidate will be able to navigate any kind of test better that a bad candidate. In view of the technical person, this is just a screening, the real purpose being to elliminate as many phonies as possible. 3) The candidates more often than not have highly exaggerated view of their abilities. Unfortunately, high demand means that the market reaches for lower and lower quality of "resource" leading to comical situations where a large portion of the workforce (especially in countries like India) is developing software by shuffling around keywords until the code compiles which entitles them to call themselves Senior Engineers. Real senior people have no problem finding a job to the frustration of others who find the situation "unfair" and the entire process "rigged". One more note on the process: while the cost of failed interview for candidate is quite low, the cost of making a mistake is very substantial for the company.