[Jcowell]

I disagree. Kind of. There are many questions that are bullshit puzzle types but I do think HR and LC provides value of teaching when a Data Structure or algorithm is suitable for use. At the very least, It’s far better means of understanding the flexible use that college textbooks don’t teach while having test cases to see pitfalls of implementations. Having a community that shows ingenious ways of tackling problems is valuable too.

[ep103]

I agree that a good interview process should check that the applicants have their bases covered with algorithms and data structures. I agree that having a compendium of good questions to ask for this purpose is useful. And I agree that HackerRank and LC have compendiums of such questions.

However, I disagree that that makes HR or LC valuable or a positive in the interview process. Basic DS and Algo questions do not require the types, number, or complicated questions one finds in HR or LC. Such questions are easy to come up with and test, and should be a notable, but minor part of the interview process.

HR and LC take what should be a minor (though important!) part of the interview process, and blow them to huge proportions, and thereby distort and harm the very process they're supposed to be helping. They do this, in an attempt to present themselves as having a larger value add than they actually do.

[b20000]

a good college education covers all of the above. we don't need HR or LC.

[29athrowaway]

1. Surprisingly, there are master's degrees in computer science out there that cannot solve fizzbuzz.

2. No license is required to work as a software engineer.

3. It is up to each company to verify their candidates.

[b20000]

fizzbuzz is the least of your concern if you do these type of interviews. the problem is that you will be asked a question which required several hours to produce an optimal solution, yet you are supposed to deliver this solution in under 5-10 minutes, and the only way to do that, is to repeatedly grind the solution and memorize it and then quickly reproduce it in the interview. as such, the style of interviewing is broken, and optimizes for candidates willing to endlessly grind LC or HR, and memorize the solutions. in the end, everyone loses. coding interviews are there to exhaust the candidate so when the offer stage finally arrives, they take any offer. all it does it put everyone in a bad position.

and you are mistaken that it's up to the company to decide what happens. as an industry of professionals, it is our decision.

[29athrowaway]

If you have a computer science degree, you are expected to know fundamental topics such as data structures and algorithms.

As a professional software engineer, you are expected to be proficient at those skills to an extent in which you can demonstrate them in practice.

The burden of verifying you acquired the skills associated with your education falls on the employer.

Fizzbuzz is trivial and should not be a problem for any developer at any level. Writing a binary search function should not be a problem either.

But I agree that the industry's obsession with competitive programming has gone too far in some cases, especially in cases where the skills being tested are not relevant for the job.

[b20000]

no, the burden falls on the college. that is the point, if the college is good, then you cannot graduate unless you mastered both theory and practice. and i am not talking about fizzbuzz, read my comment.

[29athrowaway]

In an ideal world, yes.

In practice, many colleges fail to teach those skills.

And accreditions depend on governments which are sometimes corrupt or inept.