We don't do this, actually. Our take-home code challenge is fairly straightforward (I suspect anyone with 2-3 years of real-world experience could complete it in a few hours). I do spend about 45-60 minutes per candidate in a phone screen to talk with them and get a sense of their experience. Our on-sites convert to hires at a pretty high ratio, because I try not to bring people on-site unless I'm pretty sure I'm going to hire them, and while we do a few whiteboarding exercises, my team is trained to ask questions that don't have a single correct solution. This isn't about memorizing trivia questions. It's about critical thinking skills and problem solving in real-time, and that's what we're trying to measure. If I give them a question and they take the entire 30 minutes to get halfway to the answer, that's OK.

But, having interviewed at a number of other companies in Silicon Valley, you aren't wrong. Most companies optimize on the FAANG dimensions and it's not particularly accessible for anyone who hasn't spent months grinding on those challenges. Not a good way to hire, imo.

This is not a dig at you, but describing even relatively humane processes like this to folks who aren't in tech will get you some real WTF reactions. Hours of homework to even get an actual interview, for example. "Whiteboarding" sessions in which one often has very little idea what will be asked about in advance (yours may not have this problem, but, for all that's shitty about FAANG-style interviews, at least it's pretty clear what sort of thing you need to be ready for—lots of other companies seem to want to keep even hints at the specifics of their interview process hush-hush like if it's not a goddamn pop-quiz drawing from potentially all of software development, trivia about languages and systems, and CS, then it won't work). The sheer length of the interview process is often surprising to people outside our industry, even. Multi-step and a single one of those steps may involve being grilled for half a day or more? That alone will get you some puzzled or alarmed looks from non-tech folks.

Yup, totally agree. A friend of mine is interviewing for a job and he's scheduled for a 3 hour "deep dive technical challenge" this afternoon. I think that's bonkers.

well i guess one benefit of this system is that it can be gamed if you put in x number of hours preparing for the semi-standardized test, regardless of your background, education, connections and even experience, while in non-tech roles hiring decisions could be more subjective and prone to bias.

not sure which one sucks less.

And yet, we're the ones wringing our hands over diversity while the problem's gotten much better over the same timespan, in such historically inclusive (haha) professions as Doctor and Lawyer.

Shit, I don't love it either, but it's entirely possible the answer to "how do we fix tech diversity?" is "more credentialism". "Do these things and you'll absolutely be able to get jobs at the level you've already proven you're qualified for, with a normal interview process" might be more appealing to a broader set of candidates than "after putting in all the work to get good, also survive a full day of hazing-whiteboarding and if you get really lucky we'll hire you, if not better luck next time, sometimes it takes several tries to pass even for good candidates. Oh and you'll have to do it again every time you switch jobs, which by the way you'll have to do constantly if you like meaningful raises."