This is typical for all of the big "A-tier" tech companies I think. I used to do a lot of interviewing when I was at Amazon, and invariably the interviews leaned very heavily on CS fundamentals.

I'm all for CS fundamentals, but in many places it's clearly being used as an approximation of good-code-shipping-ability.

I think part of the problem is that you're not really allowed to interview people in a way that holistically assesses their ability, so you end up doing cargo cult-y things that sort of, kind of sounds like they're relevant. For example, when I was at Amazon, we specifically were disallowed from using real-time typing/sharing tools to conduct coding questions.

Nowadays I find that pairing with someone on a limited-scope coding problem, as well as talking deeply about software design and architectural decisions, is the best way to assess. But then again, I'm also no longer interviewing complete newbies - which I think Amazon/Google/Microsoft's recruiting systems are heavily optimized for.

When faced with a candidate who has a dearth of real-world things to dig into, of course you fall back on data structures and algorithms. When you apply this to experienced professionals, who have a long track record that they can talk in depth about, it becomes silly.

My interviewer called me an hour after the scheduled time to ask if I would be able to call me back in a half hour because he was busy.

When he eventually called back and started the interview, he did not even seem to respond my answers to his questions - it honestly sounded like he was playing a computer game on the other end of the line...

It was blatant disrespect towards me and my time. I'm glad I found an opportunity elsewhere.

> My recruiter failed to call me at the scheduled time. Twice.

Out of curiosity, was there a reason you decided to continue the interview process after this?

Low cost, high reward. Like I said, I was always home from work anyway (different time zone from Google), so I was just sitting in my room when the call didn't come. If an opportunity to work at a company like Google comes along, I'm willing to put up with some minor annoyances.

They have a post-interview review process, and I gave the recruiter an appropriately negative review.

My experience of those interviews that ask CS or “puzzle” questions is that they are sincerely trying to determine that you are capable of dealing with inherently novel/theoretic problems or problems you've never seen before. Unfortunately this notion is misguided because the problems aren't real problems, and the context in which the problems are solved is entirely different to what it would be in the actual workplace. As someone who cripples under observation (sort of like how hearing a siren takes up 50% of your brain power, the pressure of being observed does similar to me), I am simply incapable of performing in those types of interviews, despite being competent for the job. I once crumbled so badly that I couldn't do simple arithmetic, and the interviewers tried to “break things down” for me and continue despite my obvious state of stress. I resent those interviews sorely, and will avoid interviews in the future if I find out ahead of time that they involve approaches like this.

You're not alone. Although it's never been as bad as not being able to do arithmetic, I can't seem to get a job doing those kinds of interviews. I was close once at Microsoft, after having done 8 hours of coding and linear algebra and other math (that I wasn't expecting) without a slip up, and what I thought was pretty great performance, but alas that wasn't enough either. Most of the time I freeze up and can't think in those situations though, I don't know how I pulled the strength to get through that interview. In the process, due to stress, I developed a huge canker sore in my mouth where there's still a scar. Interviewers dropping hints just makes it worse, it's not that I need hints, it's that I can't THINK when you're sitting there judging my performance, while having to keep explaining my thought process out aloud. Some people are just not built for that.

It's great to see comments like this. I thought I was alone. The jobs I have gotten so far is either behavioural only, talk about past projects, or written technical (they give you some questions on paper and then leave you alone for an hour.)

"inherently novel/theoretic problems or problems you've never seen before"

Some companies have a mythology that every job in their company is like that, even if the actual job being interviewed for is the opposite.

Hardly limited to megacorp CA tech companies. No different than a boring old bank requiring janitor interview candidates to wear a suit and tie.

> capable of dealing with inherently novel/theoretic problems or problems you've never seen before

To be fair, these were "Data Structures 101" type questions. One was literally design a graph structure and write a deep-copy procedure, and that's it. Not exactly "novel." Since I haven't done these in ages, and didn't even pay that much attention when I had the class, I did badly.

Another was a simple string manipulation question that I bombed because I was already stressed out from failing the first so badly, similar to your situation.

Google and other major SV companies are known for heavily theoretical interview processes. IMO, your recruiter should have made this clear and suggested you brush up.

There were a lot of things my recruiter should have done, but didn't. Call me on time, for example ;)

In my experience, my Google recruiter simply did not respond to emails. The only way to get in touch with him was to email HR. Scheduling the first round of interviews? Email HR, wait for the recruiter to email me. Scheduling the second round? HR. Finding out results - you guessed it, emailing HR to get the recruiter to call me. This stretched my process to two whole months.

Just two months? I've been doing the interview 'process' for at least three months, and i'm expecting another month if things go "right".

I was head-hunted by them initially. Had a casual phone interview within the week. Then scheduled and re-scheduled a technical interview (their fault, three more weeks). Then two weeks later I had another casual phone interview. Then waited two weeks for the on-site six-interview bonanza. I finished those 4th thru 9th interview two weeks ago, and recruiter just told me yesterday to wait for the hiring committee to give a decision in another week.