Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwaway2016a | Hacker News Reader

throwaway2016a

The comment I'm replying to specifically mentions Leet Code (I am assuming that is what LC stood for) which is the only reason I brought it up. Your point is exactly my point, leet code is not relevant to the type of position I'd be looking for.

So assuming Levels.fyi is accurate (their numbers are $20k more than salary.com which is more accurate in my opinion): my point was that I am average, right in the middle. But this article is telling me (and by extension, since I am at the mean, 50% of software engineers) are extremely underpaid.

And maybe on a nation wide scale that includes non-Boston metros, I am. But for Boston... I'm not over or under. I'm right in the middle.

Basically based on my research I think this article is for a very niche group at the top 25% of pay ranges and is not accurate or relevant to 75%+ of software developers (numbers are ballpark).

View on HN

> leet code is not relevant to the type of position I'd be looking for

Leetcode is relevant to getting the money though. It may be the case that inexperienced new hires with Leetcode proficiency make significantly more money than CTOs in the positions you're considering.

> Your point is exactly my point, leet code is not relevant to the type of position I'd be looking for.

But the jobs you'd get with leetcode would pay twice your current expected liquid compensation at least (assuming 0 stock growth) for your experience level. If you don't want those then fine, but then you can't complain about threads like this either.

Google has jobs in Boston, I bet there are many other tech companies paying similar as well. Pay at these varies by location, but not more than around 10% within USA, so it isn't like it is your locations fault, if you worked at these companies you'd be earning very close to the same you'd earn in silicon valley.

I'm not complaining, if you read my posts am saying the article is not representative of a majority of software engineers' experience. Using my career as an example. I even explicitly say that in the very comment you are replying to.

Not everyone works for FAANG.

Also, leet code is not relevant because the questions asked at that level are typically not algorithms. I passed the leet code stage in my career 10 years ago. Questions I get asked are typically around architecture, distributed systems, scaling, etc.

So what you are saying is someone who can answer the leet code questions easily (and has been able to for a decade) AND is an expert architect, should get paid less than someone who can only do leet code?

> leet code is not relevant because the questions asked at that level are typically not algorithms

Top companies still ask algorithms at these levels and fail people at these levels if they don't perform at least as well as juniors. If you are L6 at Google you are looking at liquid compensation around $500k a year, and they still require mostly leetcode questions. Of course you wont get considered for those positions without a ton of experience, but to get them you have to do your algorithm homework.

> should get paid less

Not should, will. I didn't make any claims to what things should look like, I am talking about what the market looks like now. Your ability to do algorithms is more important for your compensation than your ability as an architect or as a leader except for extreme cases where you start to get into higher management positions at big companies.

Edit: And if you are great at algorithms as you say, but doesn't leverage that skill to get higher pay then that has the same effect on your compensation as not knowing algorithms. It is simple. So your insistence on only looking for jobs that doesn't test algorithms is probably the reason your salary didn't balloon as you'd expect.

I've never gone through a FAANG interview but I have gone through some fortune 100s and never once been asked an algorithm questions. But I have no reason not to believe you about FAANG.

Saying questions asked at that level are not about algorithms was based on my non-FAANG experience. I shouldn't have been so absolute.

But with that said, to back up and restate where I was trying to get. What I was trying to say is that algorithms are table stakes, you should absolutely know them at a senior level but the actually questions you should be being asked should be more advanced than that.

Big difference between FAANG and other fortune companies is that FAANG expect their managers up to very senior level to be technical and be able to code even if they do not code day to day. Other Fortune 100 companies are happy to have non-technical managers to manage engineers with mixed results.

In all SV companies coding interviews are strictly required at interviews at M1/M2 level (up to 60-80 reports) and required at some companies at D1 level (150 reports). CTO at start up with 20-30 reports is M1 and will have to do coding 100% and failing coding interview is automatic no hire.

I am not the GP and I mean no disrespect to you. Your below phrasing seems presumptuous to me -

>>..someone who can answer the leet code questions easily (and has been able to for a decade)...

If you are a CTO chances are you have not been practicing LC. Even if you were able to do LC style questions a decade ago, without practice you are very likely to struggle with them. So don't assume just because you are CTO / architect you can do LC style questions. The questions have been becoming progressively harder each year. It is a sad reality, our industry does not decide compensation based on experience, knowledge and actual skill used on the job. If you want to maximize your compensation you have to do LC style questions. Even non FAANG companies ask LC style questions these days.

I actually agree with you. You have a point. I would probably practice Leet Code or similar before I went back into the interview world just to freshen up.

Though, with that said, I have been on the interviewer side a lot and need to know some of them well enough to know if the candidate knows their stuff. So I'm not completely rusty. And as CTO I would often read through what other companies are asking in interviews to make sure what I'm asking is in line.

My objection was the implication that not crunching Leet Code problems was the sole reason for the low compensation.

But you are right. I should not assume because at one point I knew all those algorithms that I can still explain them under pressure of an interview.

Maybe you didn't mean to use that word but it's not about "explaining" them: you have to be able to write the code to solve a given problem, on the spot. The problem might require a familiar technique such as breadth-first search but it will need to be adapted; the problem is likely to be slightly different from anything you've seen before.

It's true that at the staff interviews i just did, LC was not required but at the staff interviews i'm about to do they will be.

I meant explain. I see explain as a superset of implement. I have met lots of people who can implement but not explain. I didn't mean a simple explanation, I mean actually going into depth about things like algorithmic complexity, memory usage, etc.

As an interviewer (granted not at FAANG) I see no value in you just proving you did an algorithm on Leet Code. You could just be passing it through rote learning. I want to make sure you understand it. Otherwise I'm just wasting your time. But that's just my interview style, I know bigger companies may be different.

> I mean actually going into depth about things like algorithmic complexity, memory usage

OK, I agree that's definitely something the candidate should be able to do. I'm just trying to point out to anyone reading that it won't be sufficient to explain an algorithm. You have to actually write code to solve a given problem. That's not the same as regurgitating code you remember from leetcode, so please don't think that. You have to apply techniques that you've learned. It's not easy, and it's not intellectually shallow.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com