More stressful, sure. For many people, whiteboard coding is disproportionately more stressful than typical work, and that’s the problem.

One particular expectation when whiteboard coding for an interview is that there is little/no downtime, you must be making progress or talking about your thoughts. Incidentally, 50% of my thought process then becomes "How do I talk about what I'm thinking about? Oh no, I'm only thinking about talking about what I'm thinking about..."

I'm working on a large-ish project right now, and into one of the more tricky bits literally today. And you know what? I take breaks. I go read something on the internet or post a comment, or I go for a walk, or I go do one of the smaller housekeeping tickets I keep in my queue to give my brain a rest from continually focusing on the hard parts of the problem.

Can't do that in a whiteboard session.

Most of the time their technology stack with be vastly different than anything else you've worked with. There will be other people you will need to discuss and coordinate with. Articulating your thoughts and expressing yourself clearly and concisely is more important.

Vast majority of the technical problems have been solved and its delivery a solution to a business problem that is the most important aspect.

For this reason I don't do living coding sessions. People have asked me `why` which I politely say the answer is no. They seem to like the boundaries I set for myself and my project's more than some sort of white board.

Yes, I've been turned down for jobs over the white board but I've had more positive results than negative.

"Interviews are necessarily more stressful than typical work. That's not just a property of whiteboard coding."

My sister, a pediatric ER nurse would disagree with you. The interviews are largely behavioral and are a breeze. No dummy is wheeled in with head trauma, random "new" diseases aren't invented and asked to be treated, etc. The simple fact of the matter is if hospitals hired in the same way, they would have no staff.

I would argue that a piece of paper showing that someone attended school and graduated and is licensed to be an ER nurse carries much more weight than a piece of paper showing that I'm allegedly qualified to be a software engineer.

I know it's totally anecdotal, but we've all heard horror stories about candidates who couldn't write a for loop; some of us have witnessed these things first hand. And yes, phone screens should be filtering out those sorts of candidates long before they start sweating with a dry-erase marker in their hand, but, well.

How likely is an applicant for a nursing job to flat out not know how to stitch up a wound, or to take a patient's pulse and temperature?

Again, the op stated these things are put there to "show how people react to stress" -- my post was a response to that, there is no re-creation of a stressful environment in the situations I stated.

"I know it's totally anecdotal, but we've all heard horror stories about candidates who couldn't write a for loop; some of us have witnessed these things first hand. And yes, phone screens should be filtering out those sorts of candidates long before they start sweating with a dry-erase marker in their hand, but, well."

Yes, it is a failure of how you have set up your hiring pipeline which you are now band-aiding. The majority of those folks can be screened by one look at a resume or in the first 30 seconds of the phone interview. Other hiring managers in our company repeatedly had this problem until we got them to focus of the right candidate qualities and ask the appropriate questions.

Take for example your local symphony orchestra; they have the same problem where people with visions of "making it" show up not being able to play at all. Want to audition? Send us an audition tape and a check. When you show up for the audition, you'll play a selection from these pieces and be asked to sight read this music. It is ironic that for an industry that is in a sense so subjective that the gates in the hiring process are more concrete.

To make an analogy, the software world is akin to:

Interviewer: "I see you are interviewing for the 1rst chair violin. The 3rd chair tuba player is really into experimental music, he would like to transpose Vivaldi's Four Seasons into a new scale with 12.5 notes per octave with a slight progressive jazz leaning. Oh, and since we all know there is pressure in performing in front of an audience, you have 30 seconds to think before the 2nd chair begins to throw rotten food at you. Reaction to stress and all you know...here is your tuba."

"But I don't play tuba...Are you asking me to play tuba? Am I going to be playing this nutcase's new music as part of our program?"

"Sigh...you don't know music do you?"

The analogy to white-board interviews for hiring a musician is:

"Here's a couple of pages of unfamiliar sheet music that a second-year student should be able to play. You have an hour to figure out how to muddle through it on an instrument of your choice."

People hiring musicians don't do that, because they instead prefer to give candidates 16 bars of complex sheet music, and expect them to play it perfectly during the audition.

The programming equivalent would be to give someone a hard take-home problem, let them stew on it, bring them into the interview, and ask them to type in their solution, from memory, into a text file, on a keyboard with a broken Backspace key. That they will then compile, run, and compare the result of to that of the other 60 candidates auditioning for the role.

Are you sure you want to do auditions, instead of interviews?

> It is ironic that for an industry that is in a sense so subjective that the gates in the hiring process are more concrete.

That's because there's fifty thousand correct ways to solve a trivial programming problem, but only 'one' way to correctly play second violin in Vivaldi Four Seasons.

Music is a subjective art. Playing music is a mechanical process. My iPod can play music. My iPod can't implement a sorting algorithm.

> The majority of those folks can be screened by one look at a resume

Not a significant enough majority, imo.

That's because she's already went through all that stress and bullshit and skills testing in med school and residency. If any clown could call themselves a nurse, and would apply to ER nurse jobs, it would take all of ten seconds before nurses would have to do whiteboard triage interviews.

I have no idea what the candidate did in their CS undergrad. Maybe they cribbed all their work from their roommate. Maybe they went to a party school. Maybe they spent the last 4 years as a 'Senior Developer' at FooCorp copying files from hard drives to floppy disks, and posting a few paragraphs a day on the company's WordPress install. Maybe they are an Architecture Astronaut who can talk for six hours about how great Haskell is at doing multi-manifold monadic trivariable entaglement, but has no idea how to do any real work.

Or maybe they spent the last decade building Bigtable and MapReduce, and Spanner, and TensorFlow at Google. I'm not an expert on Bigtable, or MapReduce, or Spanner, or TensorFlow, though - and I can't definitively, in 60 minutes, tell if the person I'm talking to is bullshitting me. I can't tell if they actually did any of that work, or they coasted. I can't tell if the complicated problem they are describing to me is actually hard, or if they are embellishing it. Even if I felt confident that I could make that conclusion, my opinion would be incredibly colored by personal biases.

Oh, I should check their GitHub, you say? Well, guess what - Jeff Dean - the guy who did spend the last decade building Bigtable and Mapreduce, and Spanner, and TensorFlow - doesn't have a GitHub account. Presumably because he has better things to do with his free time, then work on OSS.

Oh, I should hire fast and fire fast? Don't get me started on why that doesn't work...

At least a test of triage skills would be a real world skills test. The equivalent for most whiteboard software engineer interviews would be a quiz on cellular biology.

Hospitals also hire people who went already through an even more rigorous screening process than even exists in our field just to become eligible to be nurses and doctors.

Once you're an RN or an MD with all the appropriate qualifications, assuming you're not outright faking them, they can be reasonably confident that you are, in fact, a competent nurse or physician and move on from there.

We don't have that, and so we have to spend a lot of time making sure that a prospective candidate even has the basic skills and qualifications of a software engineer.

As an embedded systems engineer, I disagree. I have never been asked to design a circuit, or even pseudocode firmware, on a whiteboard. In the electronics manufacturing industry, interviews consist of talking, mostly about projects I've worked on before and projects they've done before. Occasionally someone will give me the same written test they give technicians, but those tend to be pretty easy.