> It's easier to give constructive feedback about an interview process you have a lot of confidence in, and much of the work we've put in as a company over the last few years has been designing an interview we think really works.
It's hard to take this at face value, as 100% of the TripleByte messaging I've seen since before I received that email focused heavily on how confident they were that their interviews were thorough, high-quality assessments.
I think a lot of the dichotomy here is that nobody really knows what a thorough, high-quality assessment for a software engineer really is. I mean, yes, the standard "work sample über alles" line that comes from research is great, but what really constitutes a valid work sample? How do you set up expectations so the candidate knows where the bar is, much less how to get over it? Things like that.
Edit: You also need to consider that TripleByte's idea of what works is probably different from yours. Their idea is probably more along the lines of "people pass our assessment and get hired." All you really need to do to hit that (not that it's a trivial thing at all), is conduct an assessment that's similar enough to what the hiring companies are doing. And, many of us know that hiring companies frequently aren't very good at interviewing.
It's hard to take this at face value, as 100% of the TripleByte messaging I've seen since before I received that email focused heavily on how confident they were that their interviews were thorough, high-quality assessments.