Has it? Besides the number of great people they turn down, the great people that refuse to interview at all with them (I don't know anyone willing to waste thei

Has it? Besides the number of great people they turn down, the great people that refuse to interview at all with them (I don't know anyone willing to waste their time with a process clearly designed to be biased towards their failure), how much deadwood are in those companies? A ton, by all available reports. There is a difference between what I call 'clever' and 'smart'. There are plenty of people that are fast on their feet at thinking about algorithmic-y type things. That doesn't translate into an ability to think through engineering problems, drive a project forward, cut through red tape, motivate peers, mentor the less experienced, identify market opportunities, behave ethically, build great teams .. I can go on. There is so much to this job other than manipulating binary trees, and swiftness at doing that at a white board is not a particularly good indicator of being able to think hard about novel problems. My best math professor, ever, had to ask the class to do the arithmetic and often we'd have to correct his algebra steps. He was fantastic, he just wasn't great at doing that stuff on his feet in front in front of an audience. And, of course, not many jobs require novel algorithms; most require all other stuff. I'd give my eye teeth for an engineer that can just plod through and keep a project on schedule and budget. Don't see how the 'tough questions' identify her.