They are kind of fun. I enjoy the problems in "Cracking the coding interview". In fact, preparing for a google interview (no offer) actually reminded me of why I like programming so much. You need to think deeply and creatively about interesting problems, rather than spending all day trying to figure out how to fix "errno 64: gcc header missing"…
My misgiving about these interviews is that they are really exams, without the examiner/examinee accord that I think slowly evolved over time, in institutions that are exam-heavy, to provide balance and fairness to both sides. Think about exams at a university: most (but not all) of the time, formal exams come with a number of rights for the person taking the test. It must be consistent, it must be graded fairly, it can't be capricious, it must be related to the coursework, if you fail, you have the right to know why you didn't pass, you get feedback, you get a lasting credential, you have a "study path", and you have a grievance process if you feel things were biased, unfair, or inappropriate.
I understand that companies are tight lipped because of liability issues, this means applicants take a high stress five hour exam, but with nearly no feedback. Supposedly there are numerical scores in a database about candidates, but they are not allowed to know what those scores are.
Unfortunately, I do think this amounts to an exam without the rights that evolved over time to make sure the process wasn't excessively abusive to people who sit for exams.
Lastly - I tend to agree that a company is free to set up what hiring process it likes, within limits. If a month long paid audition/consulting gig is how they'd like to do this, and they accept that this means they will lose out on people with stable jobs (often people with children or other dependents), that's fine. But what do you think about companies that do this but then start complaining to congress that there is a terrible shortage of workers? Should we take them seriously?
My misgiving about these interviews is that they are really exams, without the examiner/examinee accord that I think slowly evolved over time, in institutions that are exam-heavy, to provide balance and fairness to both sides. Think about exams at a university: most (but not all) of the time, formal exams come with a number of rights for the person taking the test. It must be consistent, it must be graded fairly, it can't be capricious, it must be related to the coursework, if you fail, you have the right to know why you didn't pass, you get feedback, you get a lasting credential, you have a "study path", and you have a grievance process if you feel things were biased, unfair, or inappropriate.
I understand that companies are tight lipped because of liability issues, this means applicants take a high stress five hour exam, but with nearly no feedback. Supposedly there are numerical scores in a database about candidates, but they are not allowed to know what those scores are.
Unfortunately, I do think this amounts to an exam without the rights that evolved over time to make sure the process wasn't excessively abusive to people who sit for exams.
Lastly - I tend to agree that a company is free to set up what hiring process it likes, within limits. If a month long paid audition/consulting gig is how they'd like to do this, and they accept that this means they will lose out on people with stable jobs (often people with children or other dependents), that's fine. But what do you think about companies that do this but then start complaining to congress that there is a terrible shortage of workers? Should we take them seriously?