I'm personally very wary of using algorithms questions as a proxy for how "adept" someone is at software engineering. If I were running a business, I'd personally want to make sure people could manage technical debt and build decoupled systems.
I have had multiple positions at FAANG companies, and despite being "adept" according to these algorithms questions the systems built by these highly-paid (and, around me, generally experienced) people are pretty awful in terms of quality and maintenance.
Learning a proprietary stack also hampers effectiveness in future positions if wanting to opt-out of FAANG later on.
I guess what I was trying to convey is different: being good at algorithms doesn't give much of a signal (positive or negative) about other things I think really matter more on the whole.
(Of course, having enough people being aware of algorithms subtleties is important ... everyone, not so much)
Where the managers have incentivized quality and stability my team mates have moved mountains and I’ve seen some really good stuff but otherwise not.
But having worked at both FANG and non FANG you can see the rigor of the interview process reflected in the quality of your colleagues. That’s something that is hard to deny having experienced it.