What the poster is insinuating is that system design interviews may devolve into a scripted / memorized hoop-jumping experience rather than being a creative technical problem solving discussion.
> What the poster is insinuating is that system design interviews may devolve into a scripted / memorized hoop-jumping experience rather than being a creative technical problem solving discussion.
I think you're trying to rarionalize away the fact that system design involves knowing patterns and how to apply them.
In each and every single technical field, it's good to be able to improvise but it's even better to know what you are doing.
What you dismiss as "scripted / memorized hoop-jumping experience" actually translates to theoretical and practical knowledge to solve specific problems. Improvisation is a last-resort to fix problems you never faced before.
So yeah, this blend of criticism boils down to complaining that the only good tests are the ones you can pass, and everyone who is more experienced, prepared, and outright competent should not given preferential treatment.
Is blindly copying the same diagrams seen in various GOTO conference slides and ByteByteGo system design newsletters to make sure all the expected parts of your 'architecture' are there really knowing what you are doing, or is it just cargo culting at the level of system design?
I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle. I don't disagree that you should be aware of these things, but drawing out the same system diagram as Netflix without actually having measured a real system to understand where the hotspots are is ultimately just guessing, at best following a known pattern without evidence it's required.
Plus if the question is being asked by a company that genuinely could survive on HAProxy and a couple of efficient load-balanced monoliths then it really is cargo culting, especially if you end up with something more complicated then actually required.
Do you see any evidence that candidates are blindly copying stuff around?
Also, you fail to offer any explanation on why studying systems design topics is supposedly inferior to not studying and just expecting to wing it at job interviews. You only assert that hypothetical candidates indeed have a broader technical background than you, but their knowledge and expertise are useless when compared to your uneducated improvisation skills.
Explain why you expect it to make sense?
> I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle. I don't disagree that you should be aware of these things, but drawing out the same system diagram as Netflix without actually having measured a real system to understand where the hotspots are is ultimately just guessing, at best following a known pattern without evidence it's required.
Why do you believe this hypothetical scenario is a concern? I mean, either this approach is useless and candidates have no advantage in following it, or this approach is enough to get candidates to outperform you at job interviews. In both scenarios, why do you think that others regurgitating information is a problem?
I think OP is concerned about hiring person who read lots of wikipedia about all types of engines and a person who actually designed and built a simple engine himself.
First person can check lots of boxes in interview but could struggle when rubber would meet the road. Second one might look bad, but he can always check wikipedia when needed. (replace wikipedia with AI if needed)
I think you're trying to rarionalize away the fact that system design involves knowing patterns and how to apply them.
In each and every single technical field, it's good to be able to improvise but it's even better to know what you are doing.
What you dismiss as "scripted / memorized hoop-jumping experience" actually translates to theoretical and practical knowledge to solve specific problems. Improvisation is a last-resort to fix problems you never faced before.
So yeah, this blend of criticism boils down to complaining that the only good tests are the ones you can pass, and everyone who is more experienced, prepared, and outright competent should not given preferential treatment.