I'm glad to see I'm not the first or only one to make this point, but I'll reiterate... it isn't fizz buzz. Trust me, I can write fizzbuzz. I can write loops. I

I'm glad to see I'm not the first or only one to make this point, but I'll reiterate... it isn't fizz buzz. Trust me, I can write fizzbuzz. I can write loops. I can do basic tree traversal. If I study (yet again), I can also whip out DFS, BFS, MergeSort, inorder, postorder, find all permutations of a set or string, blah blah blah. Without study, I could code up DFS and BFS with a bit of time to think. But probably not in 45 min at the whiteboard. If I study a lot (yet again), I might be ready for the kind of questions that have been actually used to screen me out, such was "find all matching subtrees in a binary tree", in 45 minutes, at the whiteboard. The only way I can reconcile my experience with what you claim to be screening for is that I haven't interviewed with you, and you haven't been at my interviews, and we just disagree about what is typical. But I've been on a lot of interviews, and I do firmly believe that "fizz buzz" doesn't come within 50 miles of the difficulty level of a typical technical exam style interview. I refuse to put this kind of time into study anymore, since there is no lasting benefit to reloading 2nd year data structures and algorithms into short term "45 minute whiteboard memory", and it so rarely works out anyway. I won't do a 5 hour, room to room series of technical exams. This may cost me opportunities, but eh, my guess is that I wouldn't have gotten these jobs anyway, so I'm really just saving time. (on a separate note, I recommend you don't start your comment with a pre-emptive dismissal of why people may downvote you. just make your point, reasonable people here will discuss it with you, don't worry about the others).