[sfn42]

The OP said he blew interviews out of the water. Presumably they mean technical interviews, that's how he proved he can code. By writing code.

Lots of devs don't have personal projects. I love programming but after spending the whole day programming I don't particularly want to go home and continue programming.

[ojr]

you wouldn't and he wouldn't get past me, lots of devs don't have personal projects? That is a good filter, give me the ones with higher agency that do. Maybe my standards are too high. I usually contribute the most lines at work, and have personal projects that helped get me the job in the first place.

With agentic coding on the rise, it's easier to make a side project after a year of nights and weekends.

Nobody wants to go home and make a project that proves to future employers you can do the job, everybody wants to get paid though.

[Greed]

I am like you, I'm someone that can happily code for eight straight hours on task and then happily jump to a side project afterwards in a totally different language / domain. Take it for the single point of data that it is, but: I have met equally as many high performers who do NOT code at home as I have mediocre ones that did. And the number of programmers who code solely on the job is far, far more common than those who take their work home with them. Statistically speaking, at least in my personal experience, that makes the at-home coder notably worse on average. As someone that used to think like you, I think the only thing you're really doing is the boys-club-esque equivalent of what the old Ivy League managers used to do (Oh, he's from MIT! That's perfect, we only hire MIT grads here). You're hiring what you know because you understand people with that background more.

You might find on the opposite end of the spectrum that someone with a perfectly equal skillset is laughing at the idea of taking on personal projects when he can just optimize for getting hired somewhere where they prioritize paying you to learn on the job.