This is the real difference between the bar exam and a Google interview, in my eyes. The bar exam is intended to pass everyone who meets the standard: your score on the bar is supposed to be an accurate measurement of you. And conversely, if you know the material, you should pass the bar. California's bar exam is considered infamously difficult because the passing rate is "only" 45%.
None of that is true of the interview. There is no notional standard. Assessments of the same person vary wildly from sample to sample. If you know the material, you are nevertheless expected to fail.
This is very true. Unlike an examination there is neither a well defined set of questions nor even a well defined condition for succeeding! It's not good or bad as an interview should be an informal and subjective evaluation. But it does make comparison to an examination invalid just from the procedural point of view.
None of that is true of the interview. There is no notional standard. Assessments of the same person vary wildly from sample to sample. If you know the material, you are nevertheless expected to fail.