What the industry is missing is a focus on the human element, which is woefully under-assessed for. Being a good teammate and knowing how to communicate with non-immediate team stakeholders (Product Folks / UX / Quality / Management etc) is crucial.
What the industry is missing is a focus on the human element, which is woefully under-assessed for. Being a good teammate and knowing how to communicate with non-immediate team stakeholders (Product Folks / UX / Quality / Management etc) is crucial.
One theory is that the employers (especially big companies) just want the top X% of candidate by some arbitrary metric, and assume that top X% has to be capable enough to pick up new skills as needed. As people practice more, the questions get harder.
Then of course we'd mostly likely to never use the knowledge tested in interviews in real life. But hey, the goal is not to test knowledge, but to differentiate the top X from a pool of a thousand.
The top X leetcoders. Not the top X most impactful contributors to a company. There could be some overlap, but not complete.
Isn't it the fault of employers though? They are the ones who ask puzzles, obscure algos etc, isn't it?