No way to know without data. Still I have a hunch requiring the applicants to do something is key.
I don’t think tech interviews using cargo cult hiring are necessarily a good model. I’m not ever going to write quick sort on the job… I’m going to call a library - because tech interviews where you memorize trivia about algorithms you wouldn’t never write on the job likely don’t demonstrate understanding. The idea is that if you want the job you’ll grind leetcode for months.
I never had a candidate write an algorithm. I couldn't do that myself. My questions were largely based off the employees résumé, the things they did, the things they claimed, architectural questions, and questions designed to feel out the candidates experience. If someone came in with a physics degree, I might spend a while talking to them about it, though I'm not going to ask physics questions. What I want to know is what drove them to get that degree, what their passions were, what their passions are, and how they perceive the problem set that we're dealing with. Likewise, if they worked for a company or on an environment I'm familiar with, I might ask them questions about that part of the industry to suss out how accurate their resume was. In general, mostly I wanted to get a feel for the type of thinker they were. (I love interviewing)
There was zero chance a candidate could prepare for my interview in any meaningful way other than having a career, getting good experience, and doing things they were passionate about. Which, really, is the kind of prep you want. Not "I spent a few weeks getting a tailored suit and memorizing big fish stories."
Regardless, are the employee applicants willing to put in some effort at all? That’s what I care about.
Realistically, why? Other than "that's what I've been told is good," do you want a candidate who REALLY WANTS TO WORK FOR <insert company name here>, or do you want a candidate who is a real professional with the experience and knowledge to back it up? If you're working for a bank and need an IT drone, maybe the former will be fine. But if you're working in prod, you need the latter or, as they say to investors, "... the business may fail."
Finally, rote memorization is certainly a type of learning - I’d argue that it’s a much maligned form of learning. Remember RUAC in the FOI? I’d suggest that maybe rote memorization is critical to all the other forms. You can’t build bridges without knowing F=ma… some rote and the ability to do rote memorization is an underrated skill.
Rote is relatively meaningless—almost anyone can display rote memorization and replay.
This is why knowledge banking is a terrible way to run an education system, and also bad.
Let me be clear: I DON'T think tech style interviews are the way to run aviation interviews. I just think some of the techniques can be adapted for use.
