[crimsonalucard]

>They did a pretty poor job on this already. And it adds one more requirements, the ability to pretend that you have never practiced a similar question before :P.

This is solved by throwing multiple interview questions at the person that are all novel and not derived from the internet. The probability of ALL questions being seened before is very low.

>And there are millions of ways to improve problem solving than repeating BSF/DFS/DP templates on Leetcode questions.

So? Doesn't change the effectiveness of leetcode in passing an interview and displaying your ability to learn and solve novel problems. If you have other ways of passing those interviews outside of leetcode, that's great. Use it.

[ideal0227]

> This is solved by throwing multiple interview questions at the person that are all novel and not derived from the internet. The probability of ALL questions being seened before is very low.

This is solved by adding more questions into Leetcode. 1000+ and counting.

> So? Doesn't change the effectiveness of leetcode in passing an interview and displaying your ability to learn and solve novel problems. If you have other ways of passing those interviews outside of leetcode, that's great. Use it.

You missed the point entirely. My argument is that many interviews are not designed for problem solving but practicing and memorization. And this is exactly why Leetcode ensures you to repeat these template 100 times effectively.

I do not plan to pass this kinds of interview, before, now or the future. So why do I bother?

Good luck on your job search anyway. I have no intention on discouraging you to do the practice. I cannot fix anything here.

[crimsonalucard]

>This is solved by adding more questions into Leetcode. 1000+ and counting.

I know people who did 500 LC problems and couldn't get in google and people who did 20 and got in. The problem set on LC is too large for memorization to work. Google will be giving you problems that aren't on LC and they are actively testing for raw intelligence.

>You missed the point entirely. My argument is that many interviews are not designed for problem solving but practicing and memorization. And this is exactly why Leetcode ensures you to repeat these template 100 times effectively.

No you missed my point. I've talked to those google interviewers, they are not testing your memorization skills that is not their intent. The amount of algorithm problems available in the universe far exceeds that which is available on Leetcode. When you interview at google the questions are designed so that you've never seen any of them before. Get it?

[kortilla]

> Google will be giving you problems that aren't on LC and they are actively testing for raw intelligence.

Where did this silly notion come from? If they were testing for “raw intelligence”, you wouldn’t have to have any CS knowledge to pass.

[crimsonalucard]

From Gayle Lackman. The test to my knowledge involves both raw intelligence and computer science knowledge.

A lot of startups that forego the whiteboard problem with just a conversational interview or take home problem are putting significant less emphasis on raw intelligence.

[kortilla]

Gayle Lackman is lying though. Well that’s a strong word but there really isn’t any other way to put it.

Their interview process does not test intelligence. It may require some intelligence to pass (meeting Gayle’s stupid criteria that “some people are not intelligent enough to pass”), but having a high IQ is not sufficient, nor necessary.

I’ve seen in your other comments that you’ve let them convince you that you are too stupid to hire you. You need to disabuse yourself of that notion because their interview process does not test intelligence, it’s just a heavy algorithms/ds process that allows thousands of mediocre engineers every year into Google’s payroll and rejects an order of magnitude more highly competent engineers that did not have the time and/or motivation to prep leetcode bullshit.

> lot of startups that forego the whiteboard problem with just a conversational interview or take home problem are putting significant less emphasis on raw intelligence.

sigh. I don’t really want to try to spell this out anymore, but a take-home assignment provides you significantly more material to examine someone’s intelligence. The reason Google doesn’t bother is because it takes more time to administer and poor saps are willing to throw themselves at the machine to see if they can slip through. If Google didn’t receive 100x the job applications they required, they would certainly fix their fucked process super quickly.

[crimsonalucard]

>I’ve seen in your other comments that you’ve let them convince you that you are too stupid to hire you.

Nobody convinced me. There is a reality here I have to face and more importantly YOU have to face. A lot of people can pass that interview, I can't. The conclusion is unescapable. There are tons of engineers who HAVE practiced leetcode problems who Can't get in. The practice process is not a huge deal, three months of leetcode grind for half a million in TC is worth it, yet this isn't enough to pass for many, many people. No doubt there are tons of people like you who think they are good but can't pass so they blame the google interview process.

>Gayle Lackman is lying though.

Highly, highly unlikely. You have to look at the incentive to lie. For Gayle Lackman, to lie is acting against her incentives. She is no longer employed by FAANG but now promotes her website and book for cracking the interview.

If she says that there are engineers who can never get into google no matter how much they study then her book is useless to a lot of people. Why would she resort to a lie that will decrease sales of her book? She won't. She is not lying, she says something that may decrease sales of her book because she believes it's the truth. You may not agree with what she says but it is highly, highly unlikely that she is lying.

>sigh. I don’t really want to try to spell this out anymore, but a take-home assignment provides you significantly more material to examine someone’s intelligence.

A take home assignment is a highly inaccurate test if raw intelligence is the factor that needs to be measured. First off each interviewee will now have access to unlimited resources and almost an unlimited amount of time. The thing that can't be measured is what resource was used and how much time was used to complete the assignment? Some interviewees used no resources and less time and invented the solution out of thin air, others looked up a way to architect a solution and spent a huge amount of time getting it working. This variability cannot be measured and therefore is a bad measurement.

Even if knowledge and skill is the thing being tested for here, the take home test hides this. Someone may already have the knowledge required to do the take-home test others may not. If both people don't have the knowledge to pass the assignment than you are simply testing their internet search skills.