> 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.

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?

"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?