[epolanski]

That still doesn't say anything about the candidate besides the fact that he/she farmed algorithm questions.

It's an extremely poor predictor of a candidate's quality.

It should only be used in those companies where the number of applicants is way larger than the number of open positions where you can accept the trade off of losing few great applicants if you can also lose the many more bad ones.

[valval]

It took me a while in life to realise that some people are just made to succeed. These people are typically good to great at anything they put their minds to.

Just because you say those questions are an extremely poor predictor of a candidate’s quality doesn’t actually make it so. It might just be one of the best and most cost effective ways of finding good candidates.

[epolanski]

You got it the other way around.

It's a way to get rid of many false positives even if you lose some false negative.

Again, companies like Google can afford to lose amazing devs that can't be bothered to farm leetcode if the trade off is getting rid of those that would not be able to farm those effectively.