Honest question: Is note taking in interviews seen as necessary? I've always found it to be somewhat insulting when the interviewer has their head in their laptop or paper pad, and types furiously while I realize I'm already stumbling. It's a terrible dynamic, and I've tried to avoid doing that _aggressively_ in my own interviews; be engaging the interviewee, following along/trying not to seem distracted. I'm hard pressed to think about material subtleties that I'd miss in the time before I'm able to go to my desk and write up a summary post-factum.

(This is tangential to the core thrust, but as an eng trying to do my part to make interviewing less of a pain, this stood out to me)

> Is note taking in interviews seen as necessary?

It's increasingly common at companies that have highly standardized/calibrated interview processes. Often, this is for the express purpose of avoiding discrimination. Interviewers have to ask approved questions, measure them according to specific criteria, then express their evaluation in terms of a number and be prepared to justify it. That allows the numbers for different candidates to be compared meaningfully, like to like. The downside is that it's impossible to do all that without taking notes.

IMO it really depends. In my current role if I'm running any interviews I might talk to maybe 2-3 candidates at most. But in a previous role that could be more like 20-30, and when you're meeting that many people over a week or so and extracting a lot of information from each of them it is very hard to keep your facts straight without any notes.

I suppose as an alternative you could record the interviews, but then that sort of doubles the amount of work needed for each interview which is also a problem when you're doing a whole bunch of them.

> Did Google admit that these candidates were "less qualified" than Ellis, or is it just the perception?

My guess would be perception. Honestly though, is more "qualified" the absolute end goal of any job? Thinking back to extracurricular activities in high school or college, the most qualified person didn't always get the spot - whether it be a sport, band, cheerleading, whatever. Sometimes people who weren't the best today were still chosen because coaches and instructors saw greater potential in them. Or someone less qualified with a better personality and mindset about success and what it takes to achieve success is preferred over the more qualified person that could create division within the team. This extends to professional sports as well.

Why do we pretend likes there's one objective measure for "qualified" in employment?

Personally I believe there's more to a good hire than good-on-paper qualifications.

But when you hinge your argument and lawsuit on objective qualification then the burden of proof would lie on the accuser to prove its true.

But wouldn't the accuser need the data that only the accused, Google in this case, has - the positions and salaries by gender that Google refuses to divulge to the Department of Labor in a separate case over government contracts?