Code Reviews are great for teaching and learning. I recently went through the hiring process, and maybe you were dealing with a different hiring manager, but reviewing code in itself is a great exercise. This goes beyond simply compiling (ie syntax and static type checking). Could you suggest possible improvements to the code?

I understand the fact that candidates need to be able to identify logic errors in code, but presenting a candidate with a piece of paper with code on it and asking them to identify all of the problems is an unfair question IMO. A candidates knowledge can be tested many other ways (especially if they are unfamiliar with doing a code review - which takes practice to learn how to pick things out). Thinking back to university, if I brought broken code to a professor they would say "What do I look like, a compiler?". I think if a candidate is familiar with doing code reviews it can be a fair question, but someone who hasn't been doing it for years may not be the greatest at picking issues out (but will be with practice), but they may still be extremely knowledgable when it comes to designing/writing algorithms. You may be weeding people out who shouldn't necessarily be weeded out. Also, the hiring manager (this may be to poor english writing) implied in his rejection email that I should consider applying to places that don't care about engineering perfection like D2L which I considered raising a complaint about but didn't bother.