We're moving towards a code sample as screening method, but then one of the interview sessions is an intensive review of the supplied code including tradeoffs made with other possibilities, etc. If they understand the code well enough to pass that session, personally it doesn't matter to me if they actually wrote it or not - they clearly could have.
In 2002, a company I interviewed with did just that. They tore my code apart, asking me to justify myself, and I felt like I completely bombed it.
In the end they said "Okay, you pass." When I asked why, the answer was "While we don't agree with all the choices, it's basically well-written and does something interesting. We just wanted to know if you were the one who wrote it."
Yeah, we make it clear to reviewers that the point isn't to inject their own opinions as to how it should have been written (and certainly not "your curly brace is in the wrong spot"!) but rather to determine:
- did they likely write the code, for obvious reasons
- are they aware of the various tradeoffs and choices they made, i.e. we might not agree but can they make a reasonable argument for them - this demonstrates breadth of knowledge
- how are their communication skills?
