Reading the above posts, found some really nice stuff specially from Washu and Tom. And I completely agree with them. But if the topic of this post is the general thing going on for recruitment then I must say I'm surprised. 
Here in my country (India), I have never gave a single interview where I wasn't did not have any verbal/written technical test during the interview. The last one which I gave only last week had me make a double lift simulation on a 10-storey building in 3 days flat !! And I had to do that along with balancing my normal work schedule and other things. It went well and I'm looking at a better job starting next month but the point is that technical rounds should be an essential part of an interview unless you are interviewing known guys in the industry where of course your work has spoken for you already.
The problem is that I'm generally one of the last people you'll interview with if you're being considered for a job. By the time I'm interviewing you you've usually been weeded out of all the other applicants whose skills were not appropriate for the job (i.e. all the others who failed the various technical challenges). Now, I do ask the occasional technical question, but again, its more about HOW you approach solving the problem than it is about the actual problem and your technical accuracy. I mean, I've asked, a number of times, for someone to write me a simple introspective sort. Its a great question, in fact, since very few people actually know what an introspective sort IS, although its used very commonly in your code (std::sort is typically implemented using it). How do you approach solving or implementing something that you have never heard of? That's important to me, more important than your actual ability to IMPLEMENT it. I can teach you to implement it, but problem solving skills are something you only really get through experience... i.e. trail and error. Failing at something is often the best way to learn (except skydiving).
(i.e. if you claim to be a master of C++,
Really Washu, people say that ?!? 
[/quote]
Its actually a lot more common than you might think. I encounter plenty of C++ programmers who claim mastery on their resume but that can't even describe the diamond problem and how you can solve it, or SFINAE. These are all topics that are part of the whole "mastery" of C++, so if you claim it, I'll probably ask you something you'll fail at. I don't claim to be a master of C++ either, mind you, I do consider myself to be an "expert" on it though.
I was thinking about it last night and realised that there's two main reasons I hate it. If I do take the job, I know that there's going to be at least a few people who are woefully incompetent working there that got through the screening process. But mostly I have no idea how the interview went, or how to get better at it.
While it MIGHT be true, don't make that assumption. There's always someone whose skill is such that they can consider you "incompetent" at the job you've been assigned. The mistake is thinking that you're better than them. If you go into an interview with the "I'm so much better than everyone else you have, because they're all incompetent" attitude, you probably won't get the job.
But the touchy feely questions have no feedback mechanism. I have no idea what they're trying to fit me to, so I have no idea how that goes. Should I just be myself? I am prickly at the best of times so put on the professional face, try to be friendly, avoid my argumentative urges and my natural tendency to hate everything. Am I doing a good job? Is that even what these people are looking for? I have no idea.[/quote]
Fit is about personality, attitude, even how you talk, smell and dress. Its not a flat "yes/no", its generally a question of "did the interviewer get along with you well enough to tolerate you." If I leave the interview and say "good grief, I can't stand that person." then I probably won't recommend you for the position. If you're a prickly person, perhaps you should look at WHY you're a prickly person. Often the problem with prickly people is that they don't like being proven wrong. They'll go to absurd lengths to stand up for their solution, even long after its been shown to be inferior to another. If I'm the interviewer and we're discussing design and you are adamant about one position...that's an inflexibility that you generally can't afford in the real world.
There's just the 'We don't think you'd be a good fit.' terse replies. I've asked what sort of person they're looking for and it's the standard 'skilled, able to be a self starter...' schlock that everyone wants. I've asked what sort of manager the manager is; and that occasionally provides some insight, but often results in the 'tough but fair' garbage answer.[/quote]
Because its not a "yes/no" question, fit is about just that "fit", and some places are like elastic, and others are more like granite. Plus, just saying "well, we're looking for you to be like X, Y, and Z" doesn't do any good. You could just act it then until we passed you, and then turn out to be a prickly dickweed.
