There is a huge difference between a one time evaluation of an aspiring candidate to become a professional and a routine job interview for an established professional changing jobs in the same profession.

It would be pretty nice if as an industry we could figure out how to apply the DRY principle to interviewing. It's the biggest waste of time for both for candidates and interviewers that we need to establish whether a candidate with 20 years of experience can write a for loop every time they apply for any job.

In my uneducated opinion, Google's hazing interview is not to establish whether one can write a for loop or not but to establish how dedicated one is to working at Google. An anecdote: I interviewed at Google ~10 years ago and failed. They did not ask anything complicated (I don't know if it was because the polices were different or they actually needed someone with my expertise) but I had a complete brain freeze for some reason. Anyways, ever since then a Google recruiter reaches out every year or so. I always tell them to get lost because I already failed and they always respond that most of their employees pass on second or third time only.

Now, recruiters could have been lying about that but on the other hand, they obviously know that I applied before yet want me to apply again. I'd imagine a regular company would have done something about their recruitment process if they had that many false negatives. However, if I wanted to get dedicated employees, that would be exactly how I hired.

This is the real difference between the bar exam and a Google interview, in my eyes. The bar exam is intended to pass everyone who meets the standard: your score on the bar is supposed to be an accurate measurement of you. And conversely, if you know the material, you should pass the bar. California's bar exam is considered infamously difficult because the passing rate is "only" 45%.

None of that is true of the interview. There is no notional standard. Assessments of the same person vary wildly from sample to sample. If you know the material, you are nevertheless expected to fail.

This is very true. Unlike an examination there is neither a well defined set of questions nor even a well defined condition for succeeding! It's not good or bad as an interview should be an informal and subjective evaluation. But it does make comparison to an examination invalid just from the procedural point of view.

You can keep your Google job for 20+ years if you want.

> You also don't get to retake those every couple years.

What? Yes you do.

https://barprephero.com/learn/how-many-times-take-bar-exam/

But once you pass it and are admitted to the bar, you're set (assuming you renew your membership, don't change states, etc).

> you're set

If you mean set in terms of money, lawyer pay is strongly bimodal these days, with most lawyers earning the lower amount: https://www.lawcrossing.com/article/900049851/Is-Law-Still-a...

You're set in the sense that you don't have to take the exam again.

For those you get credentialed once and you're done. Not the same thing at all.

This was my same thought. Bar exam is an exam that leads to holding a professional license, I’m not seeing the comparison either other than “people are committed to the process”. Which...seems flimsy given (among other distinctions) the earning potential over the lifetime of a licensed attorney and the lifetime of someone who interviews for a Google job.

Most of those accreditations exist only as a barrier to join the guild and limiting the supply of people in an industry, driving up costs. They establish some baseline of competency but it's mostly just a way to keep people out of the field.

Perhaps, but it won’t be one or two binary pass/fail questions at random. Because that would be… ridiculous.