If you have enough applicants, why not filter out so you have the best of them? (well, maybe not quite the best, there is some value in having someone less likely to get bored and move on PDQ).
One reason, besides the obvious lack of respect, is that the more you test for things you don't need, the higher the odds that you select somebody with false positive results on the things you need.
I've never seen any evidence these interviews accomplish finding the best or even a competent candidate.
In my opinion the best interview process involves simply looking at the work history and having a conversation about it. If it sounds pretty good, you go with your gut and hire. A bunch of different people paid this person a lot of money for 5, 10, 20 years and you really think there's a chance they were all fooled? The conversation and your gut figure that part out with a decent success rate.
Yep. Can they talk at length and in reasonable detail about previous projects they've worked on? You can usually figure out if they were actively engaged and involved in the work vs ...just kinda there.
Also, do they try to BS you when you ask them something they don't know...
The "traditional" coding interview is really only appropriate for a college student/new grad with no work history to lean on. Even then, there's probably a better way...
If you have enough applicants, why not filter out so you have the best of them? (well, maybe not quite the best, there is some value in having someone less likely to get bored and move on PDQ).