The problem with silence is that it is inconsistent with the premise of the Google Interview (that it finds good programmers) and the unofficial Google Motto ("Don't be evil"). If these are true, then there's an opportunity for us to learn about our strengths and weaknesses, at least according to Google's POV.
If liability is an issue, have us sign a waiver.
Actually there are 4 possible attitudes about the Google Interview, according to what you believe:
1. Both claims are true: you don't have any problem with Google.
2. Only the utility claim is false: the interview is pointless, and can't be learned from.
3. Only the evil claim is false: the interview is not pointless, but Google is being evil by withholding valuable information
4. Both claims are false: you probably won't be interviewing for Google, and if you do you're a total cynic!
I think that the OP's position, and mine, is tentative support for category 3. I think there is value in the Google interview process, and after a long day of answering questions on a whiteboard, I feel like Google is being needlessly evil in withholding their feedback.
If liability is an issue, have us sign a waiver.
Actually there are 4 possible attitudes about the Google Interview, according to what you believe: 1. Both claims are true: you don't have any problem with Google. 2. Only the utility claim is false: the interview is pointless, and can't be learned from. 3. Only the evil claim is false: the interview is not pointless, but Google is being evil by withholding valuable information 4. Both claims are false: you probably won't be interviewing for Google, and if you do you're a total cynic!
I think that the OP's position, and mine, is tentative support for category 3. I think there is value in the Google interview process, and after a long day of answering questions on a whiteboard, I feel like Google is being needlessly evil in withholding their feedback.