For starters, thank you for hanging out on this thread and answering questions.
Where it comes to taking a realistic look at what it takes to be hired at google and other top tech companies, I think you give great practical advice. I've recommended your book and blog to a lot of people.
Here's a summary of something I've posted elsewhere on HN, and I'd be interested in your angle.
It goes, essentially, like this. Technical interviews are, for all practical purposes, difficult oral whiteboard exams. Lots of professions and academic programs involve some kind of exam
Here's my objection to it - software tech interviews are essentially exams taken with little to none of the courtesies often extended to exam takers in other areas. I'm hand waiving a little here, but I do think that there is a kind of bill of rights that evolved between people who give important entrance or exit exams, and the people who take them.
For example, in the world of law, you (generally) must take the LSAT, and a lot is riding on this test. However, you get to see and review old tests. You have assurances that the test will be consistent across other candidates. You get a copy of the test you have taken, which will eventually become available to the public. You eventually get to know what your score is, and why.
On your way out, you take the bar exam. People study a very long time for this, and many consider it to be one of the more stressful events of their life. But again, there is information about who is grading it, what it contains, what your score is, and why. And lastly, it leads to a permanent, lasting credential respected in the industry.
This is just one example, but they often come up in other areas. My opinion is that one of the reasons we have technical exam/interviews is that our industry lacks a common and respected credential and exam.
I'm not necessarily arguing that there should be one, but keep in mind how stressful and how much prep these exams do take. An interview at google can take place over several days, and may involve relatively grueling technical tests, all at a whiteboard, where people worry about freezing up.
You don't get to know who is testing you, what their credentials are, and whether they are doing this consistently and fairly. You aren't even allowed to discuss the questions - you're typically under a nondisclosure agreement! You don't get to know how you did - my understanding is that google has numerical scores and screen captures of what I wrote on the whiteboard, but I'm not allowed to see them or know what they are. I understand much of this is motivated by fear or lawsuits, but all we really get, after waiting, is a "we've decided not to pursue your application further at this point". And if you do pass, it's known only to that company - if you interview elsewhere, you can't take these results with you. You have to start over again.
I really do think it's just too opaque, and the secrecy is just too conducive to abuse and bias. And keep in mind, this is in an industry/job category that both complains about a shortage of candidates and is not impressive where it comes to diversity in many job categories. Could the opacity and capriciousness of exams be playing a role in this?
Again, I'm not against exams like the ones google does at the whiteboard, I see the value. But I think that the conditions under which we take these exams are a problem.
If you're willing to offer your thoughts and take on this, I'd be interested in hearing them. Thanks!