[ergocoder]

Which is normal.

Many companies pay for raw skills, ability to learn quickly, ability to hone their skills, attention to details.

If you can ace leetcode, topcoder, codejam, and alike in a short period of time, you probably have a very high capability of learning.

[wreath]

There is a lot more to software engineering than solving algorithmic problems in a vacuum with little resemblance to real life engineering.

[ergocoder]

What you say is an empty statement because it doesn't rank which skills are the most important to a software engineer.

Coding is the core skill of software engineering.

For other skills, say, communication, you will need to have an adequate amount of it, but you don't need to be godlike (e.g. think Bill Clinton's level).

If you have the Bill Clinton's level of communication, you will likely be in other positions.

Now if you have the Bill Clinton's level of coding, you will be software engineer.

[wreath]

I agree that coding is the core skill of software engineering, no question about that. What I don't agree with is when we make it as a deciding factor in interviews for mid and senior levels. At such stage, I'd assume someone who worked for few employers already know how to code and there are different standards of skills we need to hold them for, such as designing relatively complex systems and understanding tradeoffs, communicating these trade offs, how they deal with priorities to ship a functioning software etc etc. I think we should limit the algorithm problems in an interview to either college graduates/engineers entering the field, or that's an essential part of the job (unlike most Web development)