Amazon has the most well known example:
>When Amazon launched the hiring plan for tech job candidates in 1999, it was called the ‘barkeeper programme’. But that name implied maintaining a hiring standard, when actually the programme is about raising the standard with each hire. Every person hired should be better than 50 percent of those currently in similar roles.
https://blog.aboutamazon.eu/working-at-amazon/what-is-a-bar-...
But that's pretty standard across the FANGs and trickles down into other tech companies. They're not interested in the 20% performer that might turn into a 50%+ one. They expect you to go work somewhere else, develop into that 50%+ programmer, and try again.
>Not to be an ass, but are you sure you are showing the potential you think you are?
Yes, I'm sure because I received positive feedback on a couple rounds before bombing out. I (according to them) did well on 3/4 coding challenges, terribly on the 4th, and bombed the system design. They chose to give more weight to that 4th test and the system design than the 3 good performances. And they're sitting on 200 open engineering roles for a not that big company.
Would you really think someone with a mediocre audition fits the bill? Probably not. A potentially great guitarist will have already achieved certain milestones when you audition them. They will play all the songs you ask them to very well, but they will also show you something that really demonstrates their talent.
You might think 3/4 is pretty good. And maybe it is. But candidates with high potential probably ace them, and have other qualities that aren't asked about in the interview. For example, the greatest intern I ever hired had no practical experience in our field, but developed a very successful game mod. Achievements like that are the mark of potential.
I'm sure these companies do. When I'm interviewing, potential is what I weight most in a candidate.
Not to be an ass, but are you sure you are showing the potential you think you are?