| > The companies that use them as a strong signal are the ones that will be absolutely demolished in engineering because they are on a fast track for a staff full of rote memorization rather than strong creative problem solving. What metric are you using to measure this? I think its a positive correlation at best as far as good business outcomes are concerned, and maybe uncorrelated at worst. Google and Meta have been known to ask contrived puzzle questions for years, even before Leetcode (and Meta now is infamous for having a high standard for Leetcode interviews), and I do not see Engineering being "demolished" here, as far as results are concerned. What people don't realize is that Leetcode selects for generally positive traits, no matter how its solved. In my mind, here are things LC selects for: 1. Actual innate skill. If someone never practiced leetcode before but can solve an arbitrary new coding question, they probably have a pretty decent aptitude for problem solving. 2. Determination. If someone practiced leetcode for hours a day just to pass an interview, thats commendable. Does it really matter that they don't "know" the problems if they studied hard and passed? They might be more likely to work hard on the job given the right rewards. Leetcode style interviewes were basically initially created as a thinly veiled aptitude test, and in theory they are still good at that. If you _can't_ solve an easy to medium leetcode question then what does that say about you, assuming it basically is the inverse of the two singals above? |