Where does this assumption come from that rejecting the majority of candidates leads to better results? At some point you're just cutting into the bone and rejecting candidates that are perfectly acceptable.
The more candidates you reject, the more time you waste and the more people come out of your interview with a negative experience of the company.
These costs can easily outweigh the cost of a bad hire. Nobody writing these blog-anecdotes even quantifies what that cost is.
At the end of the day, programming interviews seem more like hazing than anything. No other profession hires with a full day oral examination. It's fucking ridiculous.
The more candidates you reject, the more time you waste and the more people come out of your interview with a negative experience of the company.
These costs can easily outweigh the cost of a bad hire. Nobody writing these blog-anecdotes even quantifies what that cost is.
At the end of the day, programming interviews seem more like hazing than anything. No other profession hires with a full day oral examination. It's fucking ridiculous.