> was willing to submit to it for the approval of this company
I abstain, myself. I have too much real work that I'd like to push forward to be able justify spending weeks of free time on fake work.
I abstain, myself. I have too much real work that I'd like to push forward to be able justify spending weeks of free time on fake work.
That's who interviewers are looking for. Now, a case can be made that there aren't that many of those people and you might not need them anyway, but... if you can spend a few weeks to catch up that's not all bad compared to what high-end job offers in other professions demand of your resume.
The more we keep the interview process something demonstrable vs status/prestige/name-check/references, the better.
I work for a big tech company where people smell their own farts and think they are geniuses even though they work on CRUD interfaces for admin portals for Cloud. The interview process is well known.
I have seen wrong solutions made by these genius question writers in their own doc, or where they find out 4 weeks later that the time complexity of their own solution is not really what they thhink it is. Do you really think in a company with 50k+ software engineers, where many studied English (but like to conduct CS interviews like they’re CS researchers), that everyone will know and understand details like; how the expected linear time complexity of quickselect works?
It’s a nightmare; it’s blind leading the blind. It’s been completely gamified at this point and the only way to win is to play the game, maybe 10 years ago you could’ve passed on your own merit of having a CS degree and knowing basic DS&A, but I promise you that is almost the case nowhere anymore.
I'm sure you met a few flawed people like you describe. But they are not a large fraction.
It’s a reasonable filter for junior positions, but seems counterproductive if you’re looking to fill a position where experience would be valuable.
My willingness to practice leetcode isn't correlated with my interest in new work or the work any given job post describes. It's also not correlated with my willingness to invest time in exploring the position.
6 hours of leetcode practice teach me nothing about a position, the work it entails, the problems the company is grappling with, and the people I'd be in the trenches with. 6 hours in conversation or working close to real problems are higher leverage.
I have meaningful open source work with real users in the queue, and blog posts that won't write themselves. I feel like it's pretty reasonable to sort positions that don't compel low-leverage busywork that doesn't help me assess the position above those that do.
Sure, they might mean to exclude me, but I'm skeptical.
The job requires you to practice leetcode in order to get the job. If you don’t want to practice leetcode then you don’t want the job.
However if they just want knowledgeable, quality employees, some will self select out of that process.
Would you rather have an employee who wants the job, or an employee who is good at the job?