This is how it is with IT companies paying well above average. Given that they are able to pay such salaries this interview strategy is compatible with big profits.

It could be that by changing interview strategy to look more similar to other professions that profit can be increased even farther, but nobody is risking it.

I can use your argument to push to another side: wouldn't this strategy also tell us a huge bias that it is selecting for and presenting itself in tech companies? With that I mean the bias of "learning to play the game", selecting for people that are going to conform to arbitrary rules for their promotions, caring about playing the game instead of analysing the impact of their work?

And I can ask that given the recent issues with data privacy and data abuse by the tech giants, would we be in this place if the interview processes had selected for more holistic engineers, technically able but that refuse to play the game just for the sake of playing the game, that are opinionated and don't conform to something just for the sake of money?

I know that I might be creating a false dichotomy but I would like to think about what kind of pressure this selection process creates, what biases arises from it? How can we make it better?

Because your argument is the most conservative and pro-establishment one: it works so don't touch it and just emulate.

I was not arguing for these types of interviews. My point was that one can rationally explain apparently useless quiz questions. And yes, this is a strong selection bias to pick people that agree to play by arbitrary rules without questioning them.

I’ve worked at several shops paying well above average with interview processes that hinged on more representative work.

Not everyone is playing the absurdly doofy “game,” just most.

Local maximum that laziness has us trapped in. Nothing to do with merit.