[solutionyogi]

His main argument seems to be:

>But preparing for an interview by cramming/studying material that is supposedly needed for the job makes no sense. A candidate should have the experience to do the job well.

I think it is a good ideological stance. However, what about the scenario when you are applying for a junior position and don't have that much experience?

Moreover, as it has been demonstrated time and again, technical hiring is broken. Some folks like to talk about high-level concepts; some folks like to ask trivia and some others like to ask you to whiteboard the algorithms. If a company expects you to use a whiteboard and you are not used to it, you are not going to do well even if it is a topic you are familiar with (We don't realize how much we rely on editor/autocomplete).

I am happy that he was able to find another job without preparing, but this advice will not work for the majority of people.

[Bartweiss]

> technical hiring is broken

This was my first thought also. There are two issues here: One is: do you need to cram to prepare for the job? But the other is: does the interview measure your job preparation?

Most technical interviews don't. Even good ones that discern strong candidates often depend on knowledge and memorization way outside the actual job scope. (Often, way below the job scope. O(N) palindrome search is not a professional skill.)

So it's great to say that you should know what you need for the job, but conflating that with what you need for the interview is an unproven leap.

[calvinv]

>technical hiring is broken

>this advice will not work for the majority of people

That sums it up, the advice is good but since technical hiring is broken it doesn't work. This is why having a good interviewer is pivotal for a company. Someone who knows the company well and is good at reading people quickly and accurately