Interviewing is not a standardized test. On the spectrum of human interactions, it's closer to a date than it's to a class test. i.e. by definition, there isn'

Interviewing is not a standardized test. On the spectrum of human interactions, it's closer to a date than it's to a class test. i.e. by definition, there isn't a perfect interview process. It's different for different companies, teams and people. Everyone hires people who "fit" their thinking. Case in point: Despite Google having <1% pass rate, nearly everyone who applies gets a job somewhere. It also follows, that the "ideal" process, even if one exists, is going to be a combination of techniques. And even then, it's not going to be perfectly correlated with job performance. Simply because there are so many human elements in it and (figuratively speaking), human is the antonym of ideal. You can take your time to really evaluate an engineer different ways, if you are hiring slow, say 1 person a month or so. But the moment you hit scale (say 15 engineers a quarter), it's very hard to do better than what we do today. The process today is the path of least resistance, which is what humans will take when left with a deadline and quota to hire. (About me: Founder of http://InterviewKickstart.com http://InterviewKickstart.com)