No, I read tptacek as agreeing with this person at Google. [1] That person is trying to develop a better interview formalism that works and is repeatable. So is

No, I read tptacek as agreeing with this person at Google. [1] That person is trying to develop a better interview formalism that works and is repeatable. So is tptacek, albeit probably in a slightly different direction. What neither the Googlers nor Ptacek are saying is that the solution to the screening problem is to ask candidates to accept a deal that most full-time employees, and most clueful contractors too, would reject out of hand. If your screening strategy would reject any sizable percentage of people who are currently successfully working for someone else, your screening strategy is bogus. Unless your express goal is to hire promising juniors who don't know their own value. Which does feel like the goal of many hiring managers: As market rates get bid up, they're desperately looking for people who are just clueful enough to succeed, yet just clueless enough not to ask for money in return. ---- [1] I do not presume that any single person speaks for all of Google. In particular, I would be surprised if that giant company of folks who were all hired via brainteaser interviews has actually entirely stopped using brainteaser interviews. Fixing interviewing culture is hard.