To give an opposing data point, I think that the conventional interview style is working well in some places. I'll discuss Microsoft, where I interviewed last f

To give an opposing data point, I think that the conventional interview style is working well in some places. I'll discuss Microsoft, where I interviewed last fall for an internship. There were a total of 4 interviews from various people on a perspective team, all back to back in the morning, 30 minutes each. Each interview was pillared by an algorithmic problem of varying difficulty, but there was clearly no expectation that you'd write a working program in the time. Most of the time was spent discussing the problem, comparing it to other ones you've approached before and searching for solutions. If you felt comfortable after this you could write code given time. 4 algorithmic interviews may sound like a lot, but I credit Microsoft for using this to the candidate's advantage. Each interview is an opportunity to succeed and show your best self, and I found that the one question that played to my strengths had the most impact on my hiring decision, whereas questions I did poorly on did not ruin my chances. The rest of the interview was spent discussing past experiences, with an emphasis on the challenges of collaboration. This part was a discussion, with extensive back and forth and no expectation to be a certain way or exude some quality. Some of my discussions ended with us at unsolvable questions, and in others I got valuable feedback that I brought back to my personal projects. All in all my interviews at Microsoft helped me grow as a programmer. Further, Microsoft makes their on-site interviews an enjoyable process, giving candidates time to learn about the company, tour the campus, and spend time in the Seattle area to get a taste of it. Their interviews are as much an enjoyable vacation as an opportunity to show your stuff. For me Microsoft's hiring process (At least the on-site part, stages before this have some issues) was an enjoyable opportunity for growth.