It's also important to learn by failing (aka learn by doing). Like parenting, there are many things in organizational behavior that can't be learned until you experience it for yourself. Few of us can be told "don't do that" and will internalize it to the degree necessary, without experiencing personally what happens when you do "do that". These people graduating from top schools and going straight into FAANG are doing themselves a disservice of the worst kind, by missing out on important organizational learning experiences.
On that note, I recommend everyone either get fired from a job, or work for a company so bad you quit, at least once. I also recommend it at most once. :)
As for inverting a binary tree, with your experience you must realize that the very large majority of applicants are poseurs. You need to filter them with easy things like inverting a binary tree. Most companies need "doers" not "thinkers". Even at the highest levels of pseudo-management (staff and above IC), you really better be able to do this kind of easy stuff.
As someone of younger years (by SV standards), hearing the authenticity in this thread is refreshing. What path in the world of tech will put one around peers who intentionally focus on real impact on people and business?
I share your criticism for poor interview practices. But not that basic knowledge whiteboard questions are asked -- sadly, it's a requirement -- rather that most don't get beyond that. Or dwell on the classic "OMG how could you not know this piece of trivia that we only learned here at our org after 12 years refining the solution".
Anyway I adore that kind of interview. It lets me know I don't want to work there! I call those interviews successful. Most candidates (or at least most discussion of interviews from the candidate POV) seem to think the entire purpose of an interview is to prostrate yourself to the all powerful company, that they may see you as worthy, oh master. It's the wrong perspective.
So while I share your criticism, I am not dismayed by it.