I'll pipe in that when I was interviewing a lot in the 90's, a phone screen then an hour or so of face-to-face was quite typical.

While I don't disagree with what you're saying here, I'm not sure this hits the point. I don't think OP is asking "why isn't it longer and more tedious", I think it's more along the lines of "why weren't they interested in my abilities during the given time". Seeing how you understood it in the former way, I'll actually go ahead and ask this under the question itself.

Depending on location the company might also feel that this gives them enough information to decide whether to risk hiring and do the actual assessment for a long term commitment during probation.

Absolute opposite. As a programmer, if they hired me after this process, they hired my coworkers with this process. Which means they have a low bar for their technical abilities. This would be a red flag, and I would not accept unless the money was amazing.

I've met too many developers who talk a good talk and can go on all day about the architecture of projects they've worked on in the past, but can't actually code their way out of a paper bag. Sometimes there's a tell in the first 5 minutes, but sometimes you really do need to see someone do the work.

@GabeSechan note this is for a position that requires a security clearance so the pool of candidates is an order of magnitude smaller, so they cannot be as picky when it comes to the quality of candidates' technical abilities. So you can expect the bar to be lower than normal.

@Anketam That changes nothing. As a hirer, I'd rather keep a position open and wait for the right hire with the necessary skills. As the employee, I would NEVER work for a place that does this little technical vetting- I know the average skill level of the employees is much lower, and I don't want that level of skill as my coworkers. It means I'm going to be doing that much more work, and facing that much more frustration. Not worth it unless you're paying SIGNIFICANTLY more. Like 50% over market at least. Taking someone who isn't good enough is a philosophy that always fails

@R.Schmitz explains exactly how I feel. Other answers have described how working in defense is. It's about how long you can hold that clearance, rather than qualifications (obviously they don't take the really extremely unqualified candidates).

@Anketam In my experience, the more security clearance required, the more technical expertise they're looking for. And you can understand too why someone making missile systems would require you to really know your stuff.

"You realise most people here would kill for a one hour interview that resulted in a job offer the next day, right?!" - I'm sure he does realise this, which is why he thinks it may be a red flag..."too good to be true".

@DoctorPenguin 18 years of experience, and seeing the results of a non-technical interview ALWAYS fail. While you can get ridiculous (see Google), places that don't weed out based on technical ability always end up with a workforce of incompetence. I have never seen an exception.

@DoctorPenguin No, I'm working on the proof that I am, because I've seen it done, have done it myself, and have seen the result of doing the opposite and seen how horribly it fails. You of course are free to do whatever you want in your interviews, but I would immediately turn down an offer from a company that doesn't do it, and would advise anyone else to as well- I won't work with the low quality engineers that your way ends up hiring. And the vast majority of good engineers I know have the same policy.

@DoctorPenguin yeah, you're obviously just wanting to be argumentative here, so I'm going to stop engaging.

@GabeSechan 1) An hour talk can tell you quite enough about someone's technical background depending on what you talk about and 2) the company might have come to the conclusion that it's easier for them to weed out in the probation period - so while I agree, that technical puzzles etc can be an indicator for a good process, that's not a requirement and not a guarantee either as,e.g., the puzzles can be evaluated wrongly. I'd agree on "no weeding out at all and just accepting based on liking/cultural fit" results more likely in some poor tech skills, but your statement seems far more general.

@FrankHopkins no, you can't. I'll just leave it there because we will never agree I it- I've seen the results and they were the worst engineers I've ever worked with. As for weeding out inn a probation period- if your company is that toxic that you hire people expecting to immediately for a portion that's an even bigger red flag. That's just plain disgusting

The problem solving on a whiteboard isn't all that it's cracked up to be. It is a single very narrow window into your abilities and just like with exams - if they hit one of your favorite areas you can blow them away, but if they hit a ultra rare weak spot you'll be struggling and maybe fail, which really says nothing about your skills in general, only whether you're lucky or not.

Perfect answer. In and of its self, even a flimsy interview process isn't necessarily an indicator of a problem workplace. I got my first Dev job from a 45 min "Hi, this is what we do, how do you feel about that?" interview. They gave me the job there and then. Been here 5 years (I know, but it's so nice here and I'm comfortable!).