Why Technical Engineering Interviews Are Broken and How to Actually Make Them Better
summary
Current interviews rely on banks of practiced problems, rigid rubrics and AI‑assisted cheating (LeetCode, Advent of Code style questions and startups that generate answers) and fail to predict on‑the‑job delivery, wasting months: expect 35–40 minute coding rounds, ~32 hours of interviewing per candidate funnel and average senior hire time near nine months. Better signals are realistic, extendable prompts that value ship‑ability and communication — e.g. 45‑minute whiteboard rounds, take‑home tests or open prompts like design an elevator or “describe a shipped project” that surface maintainability, testing and delivery.
AI-written summary · about
chapters (19)
- 0:00Introduction
- 4:41Why interviews matter
- 7:05Current interview state
- 11:00Typical question anatomy
- 13:07Interview purpose and skills
- 17:22LeetCode fails problem solving
- 21:43AI cheating and prep culture
- 25:58Code liability and real problems
- 29:11LeetCode fails communication
- 30:58LeetCode fails delivery
- 34:11Impacts on engineers
- 37:12Better questions to identify
- 40:25Examples of good questions
- 47:46Candidate agency in evaluations
- 49:57Realistic problem expectations
- 54:10Interviewer role and training
- 56:35Process flaws and struggles
- 59:46Call to action and vulnerability
- 1:01:31Closing remarks
related talks
46mIncreasing Effectiveness As A Technical Candidate/Interviewer
17mDe-Coding The Technical Interview Process
51mEngineering the Technical Interview
26mTechnical Interviews Don't Have to Suck
30mInterview Them Where They Are
25mWhy Interviewing is Terrible
27mA Better Technical Interview
51mTechnical Interview - Stories from the Other Side of the Desk