All interviewing techniques are broadly disliked. A quick summary of complaints found on HN every time we discuss this (about once a week): - Whiteboarding: al

All interviewing techniques are broadly disliked. A quick summary of complaints found on HN every time we discuss this (about once a week): - Whiteboarding: algorithmic knowledge not relevant to daily tasks, we have google, obtuse coding environment - Take home exams: companies have less incentive to respect time of candidate, favors candidates with lots of time to spend interviewing - Small consulting gigs: not practical for programmers with existing jobs, draws out job search - Informal conversations, reading resumes: not stringent, susceptible to talented bullshitters To be 100% clear, none of the above is my opinion, I am simply restating what is regularly posted at this online watering whole. A discussion of the failings of white-boarding without the context of alternatives is meaningless because interviewing techniques are search functions that all have precision/recall tradeoffs. That there are negatives to white-boarding is a given. For example, consider that white boarding interviews are short (3 hours). This naturally limits the company's ability to evaluate candidates (less precision), BUT it saves time for the candidate and company (more recall). So what happens here at HN every week is you get five people all bad mouthing a different interviewing technique, but we never get any closer to a consensus on a technique that would please even a simple majority of programmers (let alone everyone). TLDR; you don't like white boarding, so what about making a compelling case for something else?