There's a certain irony to exploiting an ethically questionable method to obtain a job and, once you've obtained that position, using your authority as a gatekeeper to attempt to prevent others from entering the same way.
I can't speak for them, but I would assume that jsiaajdsdaa still considered themselves qualified for their positions - even if they employed ethically questionable methods for passing the interviews. In the end isn't that all that matters given that's what these interviews are supposedly trying to measure?
What part of jsiaajdsdaa's process do you think is more efficient? To me it sounds less objective ("the goal is not so much to solve it") which seems like it would make the process less efficient when assessing candidates.
I think as a general rule the idea that you give someone something that they are unlikely to solve because they are not completely familiar with the problem space does measure some things well - specifically, how one performs with something new and unknown (a critical programming skill) and their ability to abstractly reason as opposed to having memorized some information.
Although for other things related to the job not that useful.
That said I was talking about your comment that it was somewhat unethical; they didn't so much think that they gamed the system but that the system was so inefficient at doing what it should do that someone had to fit themselves to the system to get in.
Or tyrants gatekeeping future tyrants, or mature bears killing/eating younger bears to make their own life easier in the future (food and access to sex).
