This was a good article.<p>I do think that the data structures and algorithms whiteboard exams amount to more than &quot;trivia&quot; and I do think there is value in them (my problem with them as I&#x27;ve posted on this board, is that because our industry lacks a proper exam respected widely by our peers, we have to re-take this exam over and over.  It would be like an actuary having to demonstrate a knowledge of calculus and linear algebra on the whiteboard over and over, throughout a career - no wonder developers are eventually fatigued by it and stop wanting to play the game).<p>That said, I like his solution.  Just don&#x27;t do it.  I&#x27;ll still take the algorithm exam, but I won&#x27;t do take-homes anymore, and I may have missed out on some good opportunities because of it.  I just won&#x27;t do this, largely because it&#x27;s too large a time investment on my part without a comparable investment from the company in evaluating my application.<p>Here&#x27;s the problem - we don&#x27;t work in a free labor market.  I&#x27;ve done my 12 rounds on HN with people about this, but here it is again - we work in a field where silicon valley employers have convinced congress that there is a &quot;shortage&quot; of programmers.  This has led to legislation that allows employers to bestow the right to live and work in the US on employees, and the employer retains that right for the duration of the employee&#x27;s tenure.  It is possible to move from one job to another under limited circumstances, but by and large, the visa terms don&#x27;t really allow the worker to change fields, quit and start a company, or pursue a different career path entirely.<p>Because it is generally difficult to immigrate to the US without family reunification or a few other insider tracks, tech visas provide one path to do this.  As a result, high tech employers are in a position of amazing power over their workforce.  They really can say &quot;we will allow you into the US if you study what we say you should study, interview how we say you should interview, work on the projects we say you should work on, live where we say you should live, and accept the salary we say you should receive&quot;.  Yes, there are a few requirements on salary, but without the right to quit and leave (including with no job lined up), the employee&#x27;s bargaining power is greatly reduced.<p>Now, some of us are indeed free agents as individuals, but until <i>all</i> of are free to choose our own path in life, as long as substantial numbers of us are not allowed to do this by law, employers will not have to make the adjustments the market demands when all workers are free.<p>This is why I support general skilled immigration, but I oppose putting corporations in control over a worker&#x27;s right live in the US, including determining the circumstances under which the worker is allowed to arrive initially.<p>Nobody owes me a job under my conditions, and I accept that when I refuse to participate in certain types of interview processes.  But nobody owes a corporation a worker under their conditions, and they really seem to be having trouble with this idea.