> There are a lot of anecdotes like that, but the statistics I've seen has clear correlation between performance on algorithm interviews and performance on the

> There are a lot of anecdotes like that, but the statistics I've seen has clear correlation between performance on algorithm interviews and performance on the job. I can only claim to have personal anecdotes, but the critiques I hear and have are things like asking you to write Bash on a whiteboard an focusing on minor syntax errors (Bash was not the primary language for the job and the candidate was obviously familiar with the language). Or asking about details from compiled languages when the job exclusively dealt an interpreted language. I'm not saying these interviews shouldn't touch on these topics. I do like to see how deep a candidates knowledge goes (sometimes it can mean they're over qualified and would be bored). I'm not sure if it's interviewers showing off, because they've "always done it this way," or what, but I often see both job posting criteria and interviews focus too much on things well beyond what the job requires. Of course, I'm biased and think my way is better. Outside of the minimum requirements for the job I never really care if a candidate has an answer to most questions. In fact, when they get it too quickly it seems rehearsed and I don't think it reflects their skill. For me, the technical questions are a starting point to see them talk through how they approach the problem.