"especially when you catch an interviewer presenting you with questions that are simply taken from known 'problem banks'"
Sure, but then, almost all interview questions can be similarly gamed. If an interviewer asks me to "walk him through my resume," or to "Tell him about a time when I did X," does he really expect that I haven't thoroughly prepared and rehearsed those answers? And if I truly haven't, then that's saying quite a bit about how seriously I take the process.
I'm not suggesting that brainteasers are as valid as other question types. There are plenty of question types that better get to the heart of the candidate's aptitude, experience, skills and capabilities, domain knowledge, and so forth. But everything can be rehearsed for. I don't think that's a valid categorical critique of the puzzle type.
Better arguments against puzzle questions, IMO, are: 1) They might select for good bullshitters, as opposed to good thinkers; 2) The opportunity cost of spending time on a puzzle question is the time that could be spent on a more relevant question; 3) Some people just aren't good at (or interested in) puzzles, but that doesn't mean they're not awesome on the job -- ergo, passing on a candidate because he flunked a puzzle is much sillier than passing on a candidate because he flunked a technical exercise. (Conversely, loving a candidate because he kicked a puzzle's ass is even sillier).
Good points. That is probably why people are often not successful on their first interviews. It takes a few to get into "interview mode" where you have good answers for common questions about your CV.
I was quite dismayed when I called them out and they didn't come back with new questions or made up some on the spot. They simply decided to drop that part of the interview and move to the next section.
I've seen too many good people (friends and students of mine) miss out on jobs simply because they failed these type of problems.
"I've seen too many good people (friends and students of mine) miss out on jobs simply because they failed these type of problems."
With this I would absolutely concur. I have more than a few friends who are smart, and who are rock-solid performers, but who just don't have a knack for brainteasers. I would hope than an interviewer is able to suss this out in an interview, i.e., make the determination that a person is great in every aspect, would probably be a great fit, but just happens to suck at puzzle questions. Sadly, I'm sure it's more often the rule than the exception that an interviewer will reflexively pass on someone who flubs a puzzle.
And I agree with you that puzzle questions require flexibility not only on the part of the interviewee, but also on the part of the interviewer. If you're just tossing out questions based on a book of canned puzzles, don't be surprised when you get canned responses. The exercise becomes entirely meaningless when that happens, and there's really no use in proceeding with it if it does.
Sure, but then, almost all interview questions can be similarly gamed. If an interviewer asks me to "walk him through my resume," or to "Tell him about a time when I did X," does he really expect that I haven't thoroughly prepared and rehearsed those answers? And if I truly haven't, then that's saying quite a bit about how seriously I take the process.
I'm not suggesting that brainteasers are as valid as other question types. There are plenty of question types that better get to the heart of the candidate's aptitude, experience, skills and capabilities, domain knowledge, and so forth. But everything can be rehearsed for. I don't think that's a valid categorical critique of the puzzle type.
Better arguments against puzzle questions, IMO, are: 1) They might select for good bullshitters, as opposed to good thinkers; 2) The opportunity cost of spending time on a puzzle question is the time that could be spent on a more relevant question; 3) Some people just aren't good at (or interested in) puzzles, but that doesn't mean they're not awesome on the job -- ergo, passing on a candidate because he flunked a puzzle is much sillier than passing on a candidate because he flunked a technical exercise. (Conversely, loving a candidate because he kicked a puzzle's ass is even sillier).