I'm yet to meet someone who can pass LC, but can't code. I should perhaps be clear that by "overwhelming proof of ability" I meant "the ability to program well

I'm yet to meet someone who can pass LC, but can't code. I should perhaps be clear that by "overwhelming proof of ability" I meant "the ability to program well". Which by definition does intersect with one's capacity for judgement, on a certain level. (Though is largely orthogonal to other behavioral issues, I find). I see LC as providing proof of, at best, minimal ability. And I've seen plenty of people who can run circles around LC-style tasks, but when it gets to the bigger picture -- you know, writing good, maintainable software -- somehow, it just never comes together right. We agree that obtaining proof of minimal ability is important. I just think that proof can be obtained in other, far less mutually degrading (and error-prone) ways.