In the real world, where your job as a software engineer is to translate business requirements into working systems, algorithms are of little value when solving problems can involve a combination of knowing how to ask the right questions, knowing the underlying architecture, knowing the industry/ecosystem well enough to know when to build versus when to find someone else to do the “undifferentiated heavy lifting”, etc.

But if in your own words “you studied for an interview”, it’s not exactly showing that you have a special skillset if all someone has to do is study for a month.

If you’re an experienced software engineer and companies aren’t beating down your door and you’re still randomly applying for jobs and jumping through the same hoops as someone just graduating from college - you’re doing it wrong.

Call it caring about ones profession and having a just hiring culture if you must.

Using your simple logic, the company could ask you to walk on all fours and eat grass and you'd put in the effort, if you want the job.

We're irritated with the current interview practices, because the gauntlet that many of us have to run is not only wasteful, but it's also harming the profession. If one has to jump through the same old hoops their entire professional life only to be thrown out at 40, what's the point of building a career in software engineering?

I was in University and had exams.

I'm not sure what you think my attitude and entitlement are. I can handle the interview process fine without studying. It plays to my strengths. I've only worked at places with demanding interview processes.

My concern is about the success of the company I work at. My coworkers tend to be excellent when the bar is a tough algorithms interview, but they can't hire enough people. I'm a particularly demanding interviewer. I've rejected candidates who failed miserably, then later learned from my excellent coworkers that the candidate I rejected was excellent at their job.

I've also referred an excellent coworker from a previous job, only to have them fail the interview process. My current company would have benefited greatly from that hire, but instead rejected a talented person for a role they were having trouble filling.

If a company is having trouble hiring, it needs to at least get these excellent people that are being filtered out. Lowering the bar to let these excellent people in also lets in much less qualified people. Instead, the filter needs to be changed to let in people based on how qualified they are rather than how good they are at algorithm puzzles.

Successful companies need more than just people who are good at algorithms like me and studious people like you.