| That is a perspective, and a valid one at that if you have kids or other obligations. I dropped out of college, so a lot of the math this industry uses I had to learn on my own. I bought a lot of books and sweat over studying them, I had a leet code subscription too. The problem with this interview scheme is that: 1. It's timeboxed and our work is rarely, if ever, timeboxed to 30 minutes or less. 2. I've rarely, in my day to day work, implemented these algorithms by hand. I just need to know which to use and when to use it. When I do need to implement them I generally have a reference and I have a good reason for implementing it (like in Go with a lack of generics). 3. It's purely for the employers benefit. I gain no insight into the kind of work the team does, how it gets done, etc... 4. I have never in the history of my career had a more senior engineer watch me code in real time and criticize me. Personally, I think companies need to offer a set of interviews. The typical leetcode for people who have gotten used to that, take home exercises for people that don't want to deal with leetcode, or even submitting example code that's relevant to the position. I'm also of the opinion that the time sunk into interviewing is the same between "problem solving exercises" and take homes. You spend months preparing on leetcode for one, but you invest a week at a time into take homes. I have been able to share take homes between companies, so I think these can be reasonably spreadload as well. Any of these can be abused, imo, but none are more abused than leetcode or "problem solving exercises". |