I don't ask anything in an interview that my colleagues didn't automatically learn long ago, just from being good at their jobs. Cram studying for an interview is a waste of time—unless you're trying to get a job you aren't qualified for.
> But, for more established professionals, it would seem that a "tell me about your achievements" discussion would be more applicable.
Once I had met an appalling number of candidates who are incapable of putting sensible pseudocode on a whiteboard, I stopped taking for granted that everyone actually can write what they claim to have written. I don't know where these people are coming from or why, but they're definitely out there, and over-represented in the candidate pool (because everyone is trying to avoid hiring them).
Luckily I hadn't read a blog post like this otherwise I would have been much more nervous for the interviews! (I thought it was just formality and expected them to only knock me back if I performed exceptionally bad).
Either way, it seems that FB missed out on an opportunity. Scientists don't already know all of the answers to novel problems. And, someone can make a Phd look like an idiot if you quiz them on topics not related to their specific field of study.
Why are established computer scientists forced to take a week to study up for trivia-like interviews? I would expect trivia-like interviews for young professionals straight out of college. But, for more established professionals, it would seem that a "tell me about your achievements" discussion would be more applicable.
Hiring decisions are best weighted on the person as a whole, and less on the testing scores.
Edit: typo fix