Well if that is what they expect, then they should make it clear. Something like don't say you are finished till you have verified your solution. They didn't.
"If an engineer misses details and won't spend time looking for a more optimal solution on a white board, I wouldn't expect them to do it in the day-to-day work of their career either."
What a foolish generalization. This is exactly the kind of attitude that I don't like. Just because someone starts with a sub-optimal solution doesn't mean he can't/won't improve it. Also my approach was to start with a sub-optimal solution so that we have a foundation to build on, which I think is much better then spending your entire interviewing time thinking up a dynamic programming algorithm and leave a blank board at the end.
Optimizing a solution is an art, and can take varying amount of time, and sometimes even your sub-optimal solution might be better than a more complicated optimal solution.
"If an engineer misses details and won't spend time looking for a more optimal solution on a white board, I wouldn't expect them to do it in the day-to-day work of their career either."
What a foolish generalization. This is exactly the kind of attitude that I don't like. Just because someone starts with a sub-optimal solution doesn't mean he can't/won't improve it. Also my approach was to start with a sub-optimal solution so that we have a foundation to build on, which I think is much better then spending your entire interviewing time thinking up a dynamic programming algorithm and leave a blank board at the end.
Optimizing a solution is an art, and can take varying amount of time, and sometimes even your sub-optimal solution might be better than a more complicated optimal solution.