It's no surprise that recruiters like to debate the value of various interview questions. Over at Fistful of Talent, you'll find a nice range of links to opinions on stupid questions. (Stupid, as in: If you were a fruit, what fruit would you be?)
I particularly enjoy the thoughts of blogger Adam Barr, who ridicules interview tricks:
I mean, consider the following imagined exchanges between interviewers and candidates:
I1: Joe and Tom have $21 total. Joe has $20 more than Tom. How much does Tom have?
C1: 50 cents.
I1: No, it's 60 cents. This takes place in a country where there are 120 cents in a dollar. You should have asked me to clarify that.
I haven't been hit with too many strange queries, but what I find remarkable is how much interview methods vary from company to company. Some are pretty much lunch and a handshake. Others require the stamina of a prizefighter—they last several rounds, while questions are fired from a changing panel of managers, each seemingly trying to best the others.
Execupundit blogger Michael Wade has a great take on interviews. He points out the three questions all hiring managers are really trying to answer for themselves: Can I trust this person? Will this person embarrass me? Will this person fit in?
(And here is Wade's take on a common timeline/checklist for hiring. It will make you feel better about the jobs you didn't get.)