The problem is you want a proxy for that which you really can’t evaluate and you think the proxy is accurate because it provides some feel-good binary.

Fundamentally, you can’t really figure out the things you are interested that way. This is the underlying problem with tech and CS bros which results in the broken system being even more broken.

If anything these types of interviews are really only to validate the interviewers bias which is that they think they are smarter than everyone else and anyone else that came before them. Otherwise why would they have been entrusted to being the gatekeeper of shiny job and privilege to work along the interviewer.

One may as well just defer to SAT scores, GPA, or the fact that a person actually graduated from a reputable CS program, or dare we say, the fact that a person actually had the same or similar jobs successfully over many years.

The reason people bomb these are precisely because they don’t need to exercise that “deep knowledge” that often in the first place. It doesn’t mean they aren’t capable it just means they’ll need to walk thru it longer than possible in a contrived situation. And the fact that they haven’t needed it is telling —these jobs aren’t really hitting the edge of CS research; it’s just a CRUD app.

The autists need to get off their high ponies and look at every other professional industry out there. Those industries have smart people too. Somehow humanity survives and the industry evolves…go figure.

▲

Esophagus4 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> you think the proxy is accurate because it provides some feel-good binary.

Having run this “proxy” process for years now, I can tell you it is, in fact, the most accurate indicator I have seen of software engineering capabilities. If you prefer, there are absolutely companies that don’t use the process, and they’ll hire you after a quick resume conversation. Frankly, I wouldn’t want to work there, having seen the abysmally bad talent hired through lax processes, but Godspeed if that’s where you want to work.

> the fact that a person actually had the same or similar jobs successfully over many years.

No matter how good you think you are, if you can’t pass a basic live coding exercise, you have no place on my team.

…You’re not being asked to invert a binary tree in 20 minutes with your eyes closed, you’re being asked to traverse a string and use a set. Stop whining.

	▲	johnsmith1840 an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I think in reality though what you're doing is asking people to grind out puzzles until they're good. It's kinda like saying high math scores equal financial sucess. It is true in general but you're basically proxying hard workers not that the basics you test for are right. Getting an A in calculus doesn't mean that calculus helped you be a top engineer I bet most engineers would fail their old tests. The leetcode interviews to me basically signal: 1. This person is of minimal intelligence required 2. They work hard The real problem I have is that this system requires an endless calculus test requirement. Most proffessions have one big test to get in then you're basically done. Refreshers are given but once you pass that initial bar no doctor is required to pass their entire medical exam for every interview. Why not just have a certificate and be done?
	▲	EliRivers an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		"Having run this “proxy” process for years now, I can tell you it is, in fact, the most accurate indicator I have seen of software engineering capabilities." Genuine question; how do you know? Presumably you have some good feedback on the accuracy of your process when you hired the candidate, but do you have any measure of how accurate your process was on the ones you turned down? I'm sure some of the ones you turned down would have been bad hires, but some would have been good hires; is there a measure of that?