[EnderMB]

To create a barrier to entry that weeds out over 90% of applicants.

IMO, this is the sole purpose of algortihm-heavy interviews. Companies like Google can put out a job ad and receive thousands and thousands of applicants, and the sad truth is that many of them could probably do the job that is required of them.

By putting in a loose requirement around what is essentially problem solving via known algorithmic techniques that you'll rarely ever use in day-to-day life, you can both weed out most applicants and ensure that the developers that perform the best aren't looking for an insane pay packet. After all, if you can stack rank yourself purely in programming ability, you've probably got an impressive CV and a body of previous work that means you probably don't need to work at FAANG or Microsoft to create something incredible.

I'd probably also say that there is an element of ageism, purely because older people have more responsibilities, and ultimately are more willing to spend time in the office over strictly working 9-6.

[mping]

I'd just like to add that is easier to compare candidates using algorithm challenges (you can check if the candidate reached the optimal solution, how long it took and so on).

I dislike this kind of interviewing because you miss the chance of hiring people that are different from your regular hires, but hey the FAANGs are doing great so who am I to criticize.

[clarry]

> I'd just like to add that is easier to compare candidates

But you might just be comparing one's ability to feign smarts versus another's ability to work out a problem from first principles. Comparing apples to oranges might be easy but the results may or may not be that useful.

This remains one of my favorite ancedotes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17106291

[bradleyjg]

Then they complain to Congress that they can’t hire enough workers.

[blaser-waffle]

The obvious solution is to increase H-1B. They won't know anything about algorithms either, but they'll cost less and can be worked like slaves.

[dang]

Please don't post shallow dismissals and/or flamebait to HN.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[mav3rick]

This is such BS. FAANG H1B salaries are the same as regular employees. You have no idea what you're talking about and clearly just form your opinion on hearsay.

[EnderMB]

I'm not American, so I'm not endorsing the same belief, but isn't the main criticism against the treatment of H1B visa holders related to workplace treatment (i.e. work longer hours/accept extra work or you're kicked out of the country) instead of pay?

[mav3rick]

This maybe true of Infosys or Wipro etc. This is not the case in FAANG companies. They get the same salaries in FAANG and are no different from regular employees. Don't let HN skew your world view. It's cool to be anti FAANG where as people posting these are living somewhere remote, salty about immigrants.

[mav3rick]

This is such a veiled racist attack. "immigrant devs" bad, "American good". You know nothing about FAANG salaries for H1Bs. They are on par if not more than regular devs.

[dang]

We've asked you repeatedly not to break the site guidelines. You've continued to break them repeatedly. If you keep doing that we will ban you.

I'm sure you can correct misinformation and make your substantive points thoughtfully if you want to. Please use HN that way, not this way or like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21459960.

[mav3rick]

This is egregious as well - "They won't know anything about algorithms either, but they'll cost less and can be worked like slaves."

It's hard to have a logical rebuttal to something like this. It's engaging in the worst stereotypes.

[dang]

I know it's hard, but another comment being bad doesn't make it cool to break the site guidelines yourself. That only makes the thread even worse. And your account unfortunately has a pattern of doing so.

I've replied to that comment above.

[mav3rick]

Yes everyone is a web developer who would never need to learn about "algorithms". Anything that works against this HN crowd is obviously a big plot against them. Never mind that most people can't differentiate when a map is better over a list. Or why binary search is fast. Don't know how or when to use a graph. These people are one trick ponies and never tend to grow out of their comfort zones. They don't have the foundations to work on new and exciting projects. But obviously it's the companies fault for wanting someone with strong fundamentals.

[EnderMB]

I never said it was a problem. I have a CS degree so it doesn't hugely bother me. IMO, it's a necessary hurdle to ensure that you aren't swamped by thousands of candidates at every location.

With that being said, I would consider knowledge of DSA and the knowledge required for a FAANG level interview to be subtly different. There's a big difference in knowing how to implement basic data structures, sorting algorithms, and implementing BFS/DFS on a graph, and being able to dissect a LeetCode style coding problem and implement a solution that's good enough for a FAANG-tier company.

As far as people being one-trick ponies, I would disagree. They've simply specialised in a different aspect of software engineering, and just like how a Google engineer can learn to build a dynamic API wrapper with Ruby meta-programming and Rails, a Ruby engineer can learn dynamic programming and Dijkstra's algorithm.