I think IQ or some variant of it - which is what leetcode sounds like to me - has an intuitive appeal because it offers a way of objectifying hiring and stack r

I think IQ or some variant of it - which is what leetcode sounds like to me - has an intuitive appeal because it offers a way of objectifying hiring and stack ranking people. All other things being equal, the higher ranked leetcoders are bound to be better programmers: but good luck with the "all other things being equal" part. I'd separate the merits of abstract tests, innate ability and so on, from spending 5 years on leetcode. It's worth really digging into the meta questions here. Why? I think trying harder and improving is par for just about any course so I wouldn't surrender to Gods of talent or you'll find yourself at a disadvantage to the less talented as well. Did you know that Roger Penrose - Mathematical physicist with a Nobel prize in Physics - was held back a year in school because his arithmetic was so bad? I reckon he would have sucked at leetcode. Turns out his arithmetic is still so bad 60 years later but he discovered that he had a razor sharp geometric intuition and put his chips there instead. Worked out quite well for him I'd say.