Some subjects (medicine) are all about memorization.
Leetcode is more like solving math problems; bad students are bad in a few different ways, a certain kind of bad student thinks it is about memorization -- maybe that is why they are bad.
It is a complex set of skills, aptitudes and knowledge to do that kind of programming. I think it partially relates to real work. Personally I did all the Python problems in HackerRank and I felt like it was a fun challenge where I learned a lot even though I was already experienced in Python.
Doing that kind of problem in a job interview is not the same as doing them online. You could be good at doing them online but choke at the whiteboard because of social pressure. You could also be bad at doing them online but lean on the other people heavily and still make a good impression. (e.g. you can really make people think you are smart by asking great questions.)
Confidence and bluster can get you a long way in those situations and you also can run into situations where the people interviewing you are just totally wrong about the problem and that involves both confidence and tact.
The primary route is "when in Rome do as the Romans do" so I play along rather than fight or fly. Maybe it is my bias because I'm good at that kind of thing (got a Physics PhD.)
Leetcode is more like solving math problems; bad students are bad in a few different ways, a certain kind of bad student thinks it is about memorization -- maybe that is why they are bad.
It is a complex set of skills, aptitudes and knowledge to do that kind of programming. I think it partially relates to real work. Personally I did all the Python problems in HackerRank and I felt like it was a fun challenge where I learned a lot even though I was already experienced in Python.
Doing that kind of problem in a job interview is not the same as doing them online. You could be good at doing them online but choke at the whiteboard because of social pressure. You could also be bad at doing them online but lean on the other people heavily and still make a good impression. (e.g. you can really make people think you are smart by asking great questions.)
Confidence and bluster can get you a long way in those situations and you also can run into situations where the people interviewing you are just totally wrong about the problem and that involves both confidence and tact.
The primary route is "when in Rome do as the Romans do" so I play along rather than fight or fly. Maybe it is my bias because I'm good at that kind of thing (got a Physics PhD.)