There’s a lot to be said for both sides of this, but it also seems like tech interviews are built for failure.

Case in point: I used to be a chef. ‘Cooking your way in’ to a good restaurant was standard in the interview process, but it was geared toward what you could do and if it fit their needs. To that, it was a pretty open process; you did what you thought would work as a special, for instance, and they critiqued your work.

The issue that seems to pop up more often than not is that tech companies are playing ‘gotcha’ with candidates. It’s not about you building tech they’ll need — or are even hiring for — but seeing if they can make you meltdown.

If a tech interview were more like ‘hey, let’s say we’re building ‘x’ product and you’re in charge of ‘y’ component of that, let’s see how you’d build it’, I think everyone would benefit. I say put candidates in more real-world situations (because lets face it, even the best Google a LOT of stuff day to day) and let them show what they’re made of.

The process may not be ‘broken,’ but how many other industries have this level of anger and frustration about something (that should be) as simple as interviews?