Hacker News Reader

Comment by __app_dev__ | Hacker News Reader

Well said!!

Personally, I like designing and building software and have been doing so for 20+ years but after doing several HakerRank and Leetcode style interviews it makes me wish to do something else.

I’ve had FAANG recruiters tell me “study for hours per day for a few months” and then you can be ready. Even smaller companies focus on leetcode more than actual experience.

I’ve worked with plenty of optimal algorithms in my life but when I do I spend time researching and looking at many examples rather than having to memorize something that shouldn’t be memorized in the first place; but the way the interviews are done it seems like companies just want code monkeys (even the good paying companies).

No other well-paid profession tolerates this style of interview one you have experience. I would never recommend Software Engineering to anyone given the current environment.

View on HN

> No other well-paid profession tolerates this style of interview one you have experience.

Not exactly true, pretty common in finance/trading as well.

It's the result of making IQ tests for jobs illegal. Leetcode and the trick questions asked in finance are just IQ tests in disguise. You can't regulate your way out of the market - if companies want smart people they'll find a way to hire smart people.

IQ tests for employment are not inherently illegal. It’s only illegal if whatever you’re testing has no bearing on the job so as to be used as a proxy for discrimination.

So a job that involves complex problem solving in unique situations would be perfectly reasonable to have an IQ test qualification. But not for something like sweeping the floors or working the assembly line in a meat processing plant.

Difference with trading though is someone is a great trader at one hedge fund they can jump ship pretty easy without hurdles. In fact they compete to get good traders.

For Software Engineering you have to jump through hurdles each time even if you have accomplished a lot at past jobs. I might be wrong but it feels like there are far more Software Engineers compared to jobs than 10 or 20 years ago.

Granted not all software jobs as the last one I got I just had to interview a CEO and show my portfolio. Seems like the algo challenges are really geared toward Silicon Valley but not it's ending up a lot of tech jobs.

Neither HackerRank nor Leetcode invented this style of interview. The questions you're complaining about predate both sites. The sites were created to help you study for those questions, they did not significantly popularize the questions.

Except, there's a difference when you're in a room with somebody who can tell when the shitty site or the vague nature of a question makes it difficult to complete the request. They can also better gauge someone's understanding of subject matter, merely by talking through the question, approach, etc.

The availability of these sites makes it seem like it's a standard, which adds to the problem. Some small company might not have taken that approach. Now, you don't want to fall behind by not making use of a widely-accepted "standard" practice.

I agree with many parts of your comment. I have been in interviews where the interviewers themselves clearly had no fundamental understanding of the problem or solution. To be clear, I didn't either, but asking clarifying questions got me nowhere.

> Now, you don't want to fall behind by not making use of a widely-accepted "standard" practice.

Absolutely. I can understand Google asking you to write a k-way distributed sort off the top of your head, but I've had similar questions from an "enterprise gone unicorn" that were clearly still in the "wtf even is cloud" phase.

Even so, there is either someone available for some clarification, in my experience. Obviously, this varies across companies and at various levels of helpfulness. Your point is valid, though. The other part there is that it puts the onus on the third-party site(s), exacerbating the problem; whereas, if the interviewers do not understand the question, they are more likely to focus on one of those items to correct going forward.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com