Genuine programming skill has no correlation to the skill of regurgitating algorithms in a reality-show type setting. Actual development, of real products, isn't done like that. This is the reason why it's so perpetually controversial to put developers through this type of interviews which measure nothing relevant to the job.
> regurgitating algorithms in a reality-show type setting
You're not wrong, but this falls under the genus of "companies that suck at interviewing," and thereby hurt themselves (i.e. the company). In other words, it's not an inherent fault of the programming interview.
But there is more to it than meets the eye.
Some companies actually just are that incompetent.
But, to take a particularly successful and egregious offender: is Google actually just that incompetent? So that they systematically do hiring in a poor way?
No, of course not.
They actually don't want the best people.
They want the mediocre people who are also obedient. The kind of people who can be told to study an algorithms book, and will do it, and will regurgitate it, as a show of obedience, mostly, but also mediocre (but not great) intelligence---not great, because if they had great intelligence, they wouldn't waste their time on that kind of activity.
Such people can be treated as interchangeable cogs, which is why BigCo wants to filter for them.
> They want the mediocre people who are also obedient. The kind of people who can be
> told to study an algorithms book, and will do it, and will regurgitate it, as a
> show of obedience, mostly, but also mediocre (but not great) intelligence---
> not great, because if they had great intelligence, they wouldn't waste their
> time on that kind of activity.
Perhaps a bit cynical but there is truth to that. A huge company just needs cogs that can do the job and don't think outside the box much.
