> The problem isn't standardized tests, it's that leetcode questions are about having the time to have learnt the answer beforehand, rather than raw ability for problem solving.
This sounds like you want to penalize students who studied for the exams. Or at least not reward them.
Like all interview formats, it’s a proxy for understanding if the prospect would be able to get the work done and be a good fit with the rest of the team. I’d say it’s a pretty good proxy for work ethic at crunch time as well.
If your complaint is that a normal person wouldn’t have the time to study these things in detail, why would a company want to hire someone who has external obligations?
>This sounds like you want to penalize students who studied for the exams. Or at least not reward them.
Interviews are like exams but you don't have any clue what topics are on the test. If Leetcode was some licensed, standardized approach to getting some license to verify my ability to code myself out of a paper bag: I'd hate it, but I'd grit my teeth and study it. exams can be studied for.
But it isn't, so I can be studying leetcode questions and be hit by a dozen other topics. I don't have time to study everything, and the market right now isn't worth pinpointing specific companies unless you have a stellar reference.
>I’d say it’s a pretty good proxy for work ethic at crunch time as well.
I couldn't disagree more. Someone so prepared for interviews have the least skin in the game. Layoffs come and they didn't work > 40 hours but were otherwise excellent? oh well, get another job in a month because interviews are a breeze for them because they breathe DS&A.
>why would a company want to hire someone who has external obligations?
I'd love to know the answer here as well. Why do companies internally penalize workers who were laid off, but then try to "steal" currently happy employees but make them jump through these hoops? The logic seems backwards; interviews should be hard and depress wages for the laid off, desperate workers so you can get a desperate unicorn. But you want someone who lacks the time to study because of current job obligations to get to an offer faster. Their proof of work ethic is being employed to begin with.
The only value in leetcode is you should be able to solve a couple in a short time and thus prove you are least know something about writing code. We use them as an interview prescreen because once in a while someone seems like a good person we would like to work with, but we have no clue after the interview if they can really code.
We had one person who worked on [censored] 20 years ago, then was manager of [non-programmers, rest censored] - now wants to get back into coding - can this person still code? If so I want them, but if they have forgotten everything... I of course censored details for privacy reasons.
Because it seems a fairer way of apportioning limited opportunities than just looking at what school you went to, looking at previous companies on your resume, or seeing how well you can shoot the breeze.
> If your complaint is that a normal person wouldn’t have the time to study these things in detail, why would a company want to hire someone who has external obligations?
External obligations like full time employment and a family?
This sounds like you want to penalize students who studied for the exams. Or at least not reward them.
Like all interview formats, it’s a proxy for understanding if the prospect would be able to get the work done and be a good fit with the rest of the team. I’d say it’s a pretty good proxy for work ethic at crunch time as well.
If your complaint is that a normal person wouldn’t have the time to study these things in detail, why would a company want to hire someone who has external obligations?