I just got kicked out of Columbia for taking a stand against LeetCode interviews
twitter.com
twitter.com
"""3\ That’s when we came up with @InterviewCoder — a cheating tool for Leetcode-style technical interviews. We'd use the tool to get offers from top tech companies, film it, and ride the shock factor. """
You see, that's when you should have stopped.
"""6\ We used the entire recruiting cycle to polish up the UX on real interviews, getting offers from Meta, Tiktok, Capital One, and Amazon.
I actually ended up posting all these offers as work experience on my Linkedin, and got my account banned bc I didn’t have work emails to"""
Putting internships you didn't do on your linkedin is not an act of honor. It's extremely deceptive and it's correct for linkedin to disable your account.
Finally, putting all this along with the Amazon correspondence in a tweet chain shows really poor judgement. Few if any will sympathize with you based on your actions.
This is the kind of behavior that college incentivizes, and also the hiring process is one-sided to the point where qualified people get left in the dust every time.
Why would we somehow expect anything different, when you literally cannot complete college without engaging in this type of behavior?
Honestly, I don't think its this guys fault insofar as he's just doing what Columbia taught him to do.
Its time we start looking closely at the education system, and begin the gutting of the things that don't further society's interests.
The creation, distribution, and commercialization of a tool that allows anyone to deceive employers is very dubious and ethically challenged.
The fact that he used access from school services in the creation of the tool places the school in legal hot-water. There's no leg to stand on for defense.
Sure he can argue that companies forcing applicants to spend hours completing those tests is abusive, but that fact which I agree with has no bearing or link to the fact that he created and published a tool whose primary purpose is to interfere tortiously with both candidates and prospective employers in the labor market, and the problem the software tries to solve is a cursed problem that can never be solved in a constrained socialist market.
The tool imposes costs on the company, and on the candidates themselves which is not negligible.
The situation shows a complete lack of ethics needed to do business, and that is what Columbia incentivized.
Their preventing attendance given the situation is a perfect example of how colleges today operate, which goes back to my original post.
Incentivize and induce people to step over the line with the promise that they can get a degree, then take it away because you stepped over the line.
Did you actually read what happened?
There was a recent article about this here, but its a bit of an open secret with Columbia. They have a reputation for this sort of thing going back to the 60s.
https://nypost.com/2025/03/18/us-news/columbia-in-chaos-afte...
You reap what you sow. In fairness though, all colleges (being centralized bureaucracies) do this to a greater or lesser degree, promoting constraints increasingly to the point where the only way to get to graduation is to violate something along the way, and its a tortuorous process based in struggle.
Then they can make your investment worthless, in the name of preserving their alumni's broader reputation.
"Any potential candidate party member who harms the party is removed from the party comrade." /s