It seems like a whiteboard is more akin to the paper drivers test, which is a significant, non-driving part of getting a license. While whiteboard interviews ca

It seems like a whiteboard is more akin to the paper drivers test, which is a significant, non-driving part of getting a license. While whiteboard interviews can easily descend into gotcha-type puzzles with the wrong interviewer, that in itself is a solid sign you don't want to work for that company - they've failed your test, and they've done it in a nice, easy to comprehend way. Thank them and move on. If, on the other hand, the problem with whiteboard interviews is that they're asking someone to come up with 'trivial recursive solutions' and 'know things somebody who just graduated might about data structures and algorithms'... While I agree that many positions do not require a solid, able-to-apply-at-a-moment's-notice knowledge of the above, I can't think of a single one that wouldn't have severely benefitted from having that knowledge. If someone is unable to use basic recursion, recognize patterns in their problems and refactor them using higher abstractions (or just know of the existence of the higher abstractions in the first place and solve the problem more easily because of it), figure out how to put together basic data structures and algorithms, or even attempt to think through out loud how they would solve a problem they don't know the solution to, it isn't ageism - it's discovering that someone isn't the right fit for how you imagine the engineering culture at your company should be.