|
Bad advice imo. Code tests became popular in like 2016, were hated by 2020, and are now basically out of fashion. Also, Leetcode doesn't cover: Async programming, APIs, databases, UI, git, tests, design systems, any known framework or library, how to persist data, how to set up a web server, handle requests, serve a page, write CSS, SQL, use devops/cloud platforms, or basically anything an engineer does everyday. It's basically a sport that most people don't like. |
If yes, then you have to jump through whatever hoops the company makes you jump through. Otherwise, you can pass on that company... but most companies are still using whiteboard exercises and coding tests to gatekeep the hiring process and restrict hires to those who can... actually code, so if being made to do leetcode and whiteboard exercises under pressure in an interview environment is a hard pass for you, you will find your employment opportunities profoundly limited. Maybe you are in the right Silicon Valley circles, I dunno, maybe you hobnob with all the right people who can get you a position on your own recognizance because you met at RustConf or whatever. If so, your situation may be typical for a Hackernews but it is not typical for the employment market at large, even in software dev. Most of us have to jump through those hoops, or join the unemployment line.
You're right though -- Leetcode doesn't cover any of those things and neither does fizzbuzz. What it does do is establish a minimum threshold -- can this person solve a basic problem by writing a program? Can they think it through and provide a solution? If they can, then that's an encouraging sign that their prior experience is legit and they were probably exposed to all the other stuff on a previous worksite.
And yes, code tests were "hated" by 2020 -- by devs with blogs that bubble to the front page of Hackernews, but companies still employ them. The new hotness is AI prescreening: you submit video responses to questions and complete an auto-proctored (YC W'21) coding exercise, all of which is evaluated by ChatGippity. If computer says no, you don't make it to the round of live interviews. Devs hate all of this -- but management loves it because it's a cheap filter for whoever is willing to do whatever it takes to land the role. They have far more applicants than they do open roles, so whoever applies has to WORK to make the cut. What devs like or hate doesn't matter -- if you want the job, you comply with whatever policies and procedures the company has set in place for the application process.
Anyway, how do you propose it be done? How do you suggest companies screen for fraudulent applicants who can't code their way out of a soap bubble? Because they're out there... I've seen it. I've been part of the hiring process myself and seen with my own two eyes some of the stunts people will pull to land a job they are far, far from qualified for.