[neilv]

> As my time in university went on, I started to focus less on optimizing for FAANG (leetcode) and more on building side projects.

That might or might not be a smart move in the current context, but the tragedy of students grinding Leetcode for obnoxious jobs gatekeeping needs to stop.

[yamtaddle]

I'm pretty sure it's to keep FAANG workers from jumping ship too easily, in order to suppress wages. If it were actually for evaluation reasons, FAANG and friends would just get together and come up with some kind of certification with renewal requirements, saving themselves and everyone else an absolute shitload of time and money.

[EDIT] My point is, the practice doesn't continue for "gatekeeping" for its own sake, so if you want it to end, you'd need to address the reasons it's happening. There are obvious ways to solve the stated problems more-cheaply and with less harm to candidates, which leaves unstated problems. The wage-suppression explanation fits pretty well (including with past, proven behavior—this is clearly something they're quite concerned about) and is one of the few things that could justify the expense of the current system versus cheaper alternatives that would solve the stated problems.

[janalsncm]

I interview people and ask LC-style questions. It’s not the only part of my interview nor is it a dealbreaker to not get the optimal solution. Being a savant capable of finding a mathematical breakthrough in 30 minutes is not important. But it gives me a chance to see how nimble you are with code which is important.

[nicoburns]

Why ask leetcode questions rather than realistic ones that represent the sort of code someone might actually be expected to write during the course of their job?

[mercutio2]

Domain specific questions end up being MORE unfair, from my perspective. They optimize for people familiar with a bunch of trivial knowledge that doesn't actually have much to do with CS.

As it happens all my "leetcode style" questions involve code I've actually written in anger for shipping software.

But dressing up hard problems in a bunch of situation-specific word-problem camouflage to make it seem like I don't care if you can analyze, apply, and discuss common CS concepts doesn't seem an improvement.

[ThrowawayR2]

There is no "course of their job" at the largest FAANGs since they work in so many domains and markets and an employee may migrate between several different teams over the course of their stay. FAANGs want people that are adaptable, not one trick ponies.

[tqi]

> FAANG and friends would just get together and come up with some kind of...

I think the DOJ frowns upon that kind of behavior.

[yamtaddle]

Industry associations creating certifications w/ testing?

[tqi]

Hm IANAL so am definitely waaay out over my skis here, but I assume the optics of large employers mutually deciding who is/isn't qualified to work for them lends itself to accusations of collusion and wage suppression.

[yamtaddle]

On the contrary, having a certification not tied to any particular employer (hell, any company could require or prefer X level of that certification) and letting candidates holding that certification skip the grueling, insanely-long hazing ritual they have to go through with every single company they interview at that's in a similar pay-bracket, would tend to do the opposite of wage suppression (versus the current system).

Test once, interview as much as you like for the next, I dunno, two years, no more multi-hour live leetcoding required (the employers shouldn't want to spend money on that, if they just need to make sure you can do it—the certification handles that). Some of the FAANGs already practically publish study guides, so it's not like they're opposed to making the system pretty damn clear and possible to study for. No, it must be that making each interview painful is the point. Else, why would someone who's already passed at two other FAANGs and also the very one they're applying to, a decade ago have to go through it yet again? It's incredibly expensive, and only makes sense if the point is to make sure employees think twice and then thrice about going on the job-hunt again.

[pphysch]

We're way past that point. Big Business (i.e. BRT) is currently pushing a new bill that would allow corporations to "buy" undocumented laborers at $2K-$10K for a period of 10 years. IANA-policy-wonk but it looks like it could become law.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/6637...