I'm on the faculty at Boston University in the computer science department, where I teach software engineering, intro courses, and application architecture and development. Also a bit of a Deadhead.
For some reason, developers are lumped into the 'professional' category (doctors, lawyers, and so on), even though really it's more of a trade job. Most 'professional' workers are licensed in some way, and getting that license involves some (often) very intense examinations. Devs aren't licensed, but companies want to treat them like they are, and so lay on the complex grilling during interviews.
Also, there are a lot of devs, and we keep cranking out more. (With more to come due to all the silly 'everyone should code' programs so beloved in lower ed right now.) If you have 50 applicants for a job, it isn't a lot of extra effort on the company's part to weed out the wannabes with a series of increasingly difficult interviews. We used to call this 'purple squirrel' syndrome...with so many applicants, the company writes extraordinarily precise job descriptions and test against them. (With so many applicants, there's bound to be one or two purple squirrels who match.)
I personally think that the process is ridiculous, and that companies use it because they are lazy and haven't bothered to come up with a better model for finding compatible workers. Much more important than any specific skill is the ability to learn and adapt. Heck, if I were still conducting interviews I might hand an applicant a small set of docs for a made-up language and ask them to write code in it to solve some problem.
Even more important, really, is whether someone is a good fit for the team in terms of they personality and work ethic. You're going to be seeing this person every day for hours at a time and have to rely on him or her to carry their weight...all the skills in the world don't count as much as whether I can stand to see you walk in the door in the morning.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
A few thoughts come to mind.
For some reason, developers are lumped into the 'professional' category (doctors, lawyers, and so on), even though really it's more of a trade job. Most 'professional' workers are licensed in some way, and getting that license involves some (often) very intense examinations. Devs aren't licensed, but companies want to treat them like they are, and so lay on the complex grilling during interviews.
Also, there are a lot of devs, and we keep cranking out more. (With more to come due to all the silly 'everyone should code' programs so beloved in lower ed right now.) If you have 50 applicants for a job, it isn't a lot of extra effort on the company's part to weed out the wannabes with a series of increasingly difficult interviews. We used to call this 'purple squirrel' syndrome...with so many applicants, the company writes extraordinarily precise job descriptions and test against them. (With so many applicants, there's bound to be one or two purple squirrels who match.)
I personally think that the process is ridiculous, and that companies use it because they are lazy and haven't bothered to come up with a better model for finding compatible workers. Much more important than any specific skill is the ability to learn and adapt. Heck, if I were still conducting interviews I might hand an applicant a small set of docs for a made-up language and ask them to write code in it to solve some problem.
Even more important, really, is whether someone is a good fit for the team in terms of they personality and work ethic. You're going to be seeing this person every day for hours at a time and have to rely on him or her to carry their weight...all the skills in the world don't count as much as whether I can stand to see you walk in the door in the morning.