I think even those on the interviewer side acknowledge that leetcode style questions aren't perfect. I think the biggest misconception is the idea that memorizi

I think even those on the interviewer side acknowledge that leetcode style questions aren't perfect. I think the biggest misconception is the idea that memorizing the puzzle itself is the hiring criteria, when in reality it's supposed to be thought of as a more elaborate version of fizz buzz. For example, inverting a binary tree isn't about binary trees or data structures, it's more meant to be about whether you understand recursion. It can tie into signals about ability to break down problems into smaller pieces, understanding of memory layout (a proxy for understanding of low level concerns), etc. Ideally one should not need to check an entire barrage of checkboxes perfectly, but enough in some dimension to "prove" they aren't completely clueless about programming, and also not raise a bunch of red flags (e.g. if you tell me you have 10 years Java experience and then struggle with class syntax, that's obviously going to look bad). Ideally there are peripheral questions where one gets the opportunity to display well-roundedness (I like to ask about testing in an open ended fashion, for example). Ideally, an interviewer org ought to take a bit of effort to cater questions to roles/stacks more appropriately. Web folks tends to do this well IME. Unfortunately, many interviewers take coding/algo sessions as an opportunity to do a pissing contest either because they haven't been trained/prepared well or because of some dumb sense that company brand is somehow related to their personal worth or whatever, hence the bad rep.