It has been done, I've seen the numbers and they work. Other companies have probably done the same. Of course this isn't popular, instead people up-vote anecdotes from people who say that they once had an algorithm wiz who performed badly, or how some stellar performers were rejected by this kind of interview.
> Of course this isn't popular, instead people up-vote anecdotes from people who say that they once had an algorithm wiz who performed badly, or how some stellar performers were rejected by this kind of interview.
That's kind of reductionist. I upvote answers that at least attempt to propose alternatives to the current status quo. The employer side isn't the only relevant one, which is likely a stronger reason why a lot of current hiring practices aren't popular. Some only work at FAANG scale with a large enough pool of applicants, some seem optimized to hire people that waste time on code puzzles (that doesn't make them an "algorithm wiz") and others generally put applicants in a position resembling begging for a job, especially for junior roles.
Just because something works well on some quantitative metric does neither imply that it is the only, nor the optimal solution, especially in two player games like hiring.
Right, if you pay significantly less than top companies you probably don't want to filter using their metrics since then you will just get their leftovers. Instead you should try to find the good candidates they miss. However there is really no reason for top companies to change their interviews.
> Right, if you pay significantly less than top companies you probably don't want to filter using their metrics since then you will just get their leftovers.
Not sure where you read "less pay" into my comment but fine, let's go with that and just ignore that quite a few companies immitate FAANG style hiring these days.
> Instead you should try to find the good candidates they miss. However there is really no reason for top companies to change their interviews.
Yeah, I feel like we're arguing two completely different things here, there's plenty of reasons for companies to change processes even if they work on some metric. When a large number of experienced participants in the fields you are hiring for are offering critique on your process it should be at least reason enough to talk about it, which is the whole point of discussions like these.
> quite a few companies immitate FAANG style hiring these days.
My point was that they shouldn't unless their offer can compete with FAANG offers.
> When a large number of experienced participants in the fields you are hiring for are offering critique on your process it should be at least reason enough to talk about it
FAANG are spending billions a year to keep this process running, there are huge amounts of work put into trying to change or improve it. And some things do change, but the signals from doing algorithms is just too salient to throw away.
