Part of the problem is people just memorize things for interviews. We interviewed three candidates that were almost exact copies of each other in their responses. Maybe they all read the same interview book?

I also witnessed someone give a completely wrong (algorithm) whiteboard answer to a problem. Obviously they weren't thinking about the problem as they did it.

Algorithm that were solved over decades and centuries are asked during the 15-20 minute demonstration asks it to be memorized

The problem is the sheer dumbness of those who believe it is important in the interview process

Plus, everyone thinks they are Google or Facebook, or that they are about to become Google or Facebook. You are not.

Pretty much this. Companies needed software engineers, looked at what Google was doing, and copied. And they call themselves innovative for doing it.

Ah, so to reach their hiring destination, their preferred mode of transportation is the bandwagon.

Methinks it’s a good enough method to somehow get good enough candidates. Hiring is hard because it’s a negotiation: sellers always upsell their skills and buyers gotta figure it out. Negotiation is skill that not everyone has so at least by having some sort of standard test like the current leetcode system, you can guarantee the dudes coming in know the difference between a Stack and Queue

A company whose smart engineers threw their hands up claiming no moat while they were the pioneer of AI

Big Tech could afford to do that due to their aura of mysticism and greatness, but if you're a mom and pop shop with Google-esque aspirations but none of the compensation and status, I wonder how many candidates have the patience and interest to go through the hoops.

After subprime interest rates went to or near zero, prompting a huge influx of cash available for VCs with heightened FOMO due to increasing complexity of software. Marginal quality of talent decreased while remuneration went through the roof, drowning out valid signals in cvs and interview processes with so much noise that any complicated enough system was seen as valid. Extremely high rate of failure, which was made acceptable due to the potential rewards of funding a unicorn early further degraded the ability of anyone involved to conduct clear assessments.

Before 2010, I used to get a lot of “why are manhole covers round?” type questions, not ACM competition type questions.