Isn’t that going to result in a highly biased interview process? I suspect extroverts will do disproportionately better than introverts, and those who are comfortable in technologies the interviewer is not will do worse than those who share a similar technical background.

I also think the skill cap on this sort of question is super low.

(I’d put design questions in a different category though)

What process do you think introverts are going to have an equal footing at that isn't take home homework?

And yes, people who know technology will do better.. in a technology interview. I suppose I could ask about gardening but that doesn't help much does it?

Algorithmic interviews are huge equalizers. Anyone regardless of their social skills or technical background can show their talent.

I’m not talking about people who know technology generally. I’m talking about people who know different technology. The process you’ve proposed, if implemented at, say, PHP shop, will rule out plenty of great .NET developers since the interviewer won’t have the context.

Algorithmic interviews optimise for algorithmic knowledge, not on the job capability. It checks for rote learning and time spent preparing for the interview.

Knowing how to implement prefix tree or a hash table shows that you've learned solutions, but not that you can write good code in a team environment. Frankly I'd take a worse engineer that worked better in a team over a 10x that ends up silo'ed in 95% of cases.

That’s not a fair characterization of how most companies (well, at least FAANG) do algorithmic interviews.

A good algorithmic interview does not test algorithm trivia. The question should be solvable with only strong structured thinking and fundamentals.

For example, the much-derided “reverse a binary tree” question (I don’t ask it but I think it’s reasonable) doesn’t really require a ton of algorithm trivia. The data structure can be explained in a few minutes and the problem definition can be made super clear and crisp.

Algorithmic interviews, at least the way they are formatted now (with interviewers silently watching over the candidate at all times, typing notes) also test for anxiety:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23848039

Maybe the content, despite it being able to be gamed and drilled via Leetcode et al, is sound, but the format in which it is tested may not be.

I've interviewed for Facebook and Google in the past, and at both, my algorithm questions were textbook leetcode/competitive programming questions. You either know the algorithm and/or data structure and know the answer,or you don't and you fail the interview.

Sorry, but introverts can do oral exams just fine.

So instead of selecting people who can do algorithmic problem solving well (under pressure), you’re selecting people who can bullshit well (under pressure).

I’m not convinced it’s really an improvement. I’ve worked with too many people who are great bullshitters but terrible engineers, who sailed through on their charisma.

But that’s why most companies have a mix of technical and behavioral interviews.

Lots of people can bullshit their way out of this. They just repeat stuff they heard their teammates say.

Talking about higher level stuff doesn't mean you can comprehend certain development problems.

> Lots of people can bullshit their way out of this. They just repeat stuff they heard their teammates say.

Indeed. The only way such questions are useful, is as a starting point, maybe they make the candidate more comfortable (less nervous), and they also ensure that you're not asking something the candidate is completely unfamiliar with.

But in any case, any such "experience" or generally "subjective" question must be accompanied by further detail-oriented questions - why did you do this and not that, tradeoffs of different solutions, "how does this framework/library work underneath", questions about understanding performance/security etc characteristics and why, etc.

Lots of people can talk about code but not write it. Way more in fact!