I'd much rather my engineers have spent their time practicing their actual jobs and not brainteaser interviews. To wit, the interview questions I ask are usually in line with the role they're assuming.
One idea here is to give candidates an open problem in CS and ask them to solve it. Which is a nice idea, but one of the other things I learned through administering hundreds of interviews is that open-ended questions aren't great interview problems because they depend a lot on creativity/lateral thinking/insight, which highly benefits from being in a relaxed frame of mind. So these questions end up being a test of how relaxed the candidate is.
Stress creates tunnel vision, which is terrible for generating interesting research ideas but it's OK for solving these kind of leetcode problems. So checking for a very high level of programming aptitude, as a proxy for CS research ability, is an approach which is a bit more fair to candidates who are stressed out by interviews. (I also think it is a pretty decent proxy, because doing great CS research requires you to quickly & fluidly generate & evaluate algorithms / data structures which might solve your problem, which is a big part of what a great leetcoder does.)
If you're targeting a very high level of generic programming aptitude, it is arguably most fair to make use of a standard method of measuring it. Leetcode problems are the industry standard for measuring programming aptitude. People know to practice them a lot and they know what to expect. If you came up with your own unique way to measure programming aptitude, that would create an even greater burden on candidates to practice (they'd have to do a whole different sort of practice in order to succeed in your interview), and also create anxiety due to an unexpected interview format.
I think a lot of readers are overreacting because they didn't pay enough attention to this bit: "It's applicable if you're building an extraordinary team at a hard technology startup." The vast majority of companies in SV are not doing hard technology and don't need an extraordinary team. People should not feel inadequate if they aren't capable of improving the state of the art in technical areas of CS such as databases. This is ordinarily the domain of PhDs, and filtering for demonstrated algorithmic aptitude (as opposed to academic credentials) is actually a pretty egalitarian approach.
> "It's applicable if you're building an extraordinary team at a hard technology startup."
And you're accepting that a timed question about tic tac toe is enough to prove you're capable of being on an "extraordinary team" at a "hard technology startup"?
Really?
If you don't agree with me that the fluency I described is a significant asset to advancing the state of the art in CS, what do you think a significant asset is?
Sure. Again. I don't really think an algorithm that shows up as an introduction to algorithm proves much more than a person read "Intro to Algorithms". So again, a timed introductory problem proves some elite technical skill?
> If you don't agree with me that the fluency I described is a significant asset to advancing the state of the art in CS
You're building a cute lil strawman. I think the question is totally out of line with the stated goal. If a college sophomore can answer a question, you're not really assessing much of anything. Also, working at a "hard startup" has nothing to do with "advancing the state of the art in CS".
> what do you think a significant asset is?
If I'm handling hiring for a "hard startup" and am in search of engineers fit for an "extraordinary team", I'm probably going to spend more time finding applicable skills than opening up to Chapter 1 in the closest algorithms book.
In my observation the default state of a student reading a textbook is it goes in one ear and out the other. Most students temporarily acquire a superficial understanding of the concepts which allows them to answer test questions and get a decent grade. To see something in the wild and instantly recognize that it's isomorphic to a concept you studied years ago requires a level of mastery/passion well beyond what it takes to get an A. (I'm talking about school in general here, of course the fact that interviews index so heavily on data structures/algorithms ends up distorting things a lot from the baseline. Still, if you solve this problem in 10 minutes you're one helluva sophomore.)
>Also, working at a "hard startup" has nothing to do with "advancing the state of the art in CS".
I think of "hard technology" like rethinkdb as being exactly equivalent to cutting edge stuff that advances the state of the art in some way... again, maybe there's just been a misunderstanding/miscommunication here