7 ms·

Here's the thing, large tech companies aren't looking to hire engineers, especially juniors, who are great at being an engineer because that's incredibly hard t

Here's the thing, large tech companies aren't looking to hire engineers, especially juniors, who are great at being an engineer because that's incredibly hard to test for in an interview and almost impossible to scale fairly. They're looking for people who will devote their life to the company and can quickly learn new skills. That's exactly what leetcode tests for, so it really isn't surprising at all that every tech company does leetcode interviews. Really the answer is either commit to the grind or go for a job at a non-tech company.

nowherebeen 4y ago
> devote their life Sounds like they are trying to breed a cult...
- tfigment 4y ago
  They are exaggerating but not all wrong. As hiring manager my job is not to train you for your next job. I'm hiring for productivity and that takes time. If you are going to jump ship before you "pay" back the company then I'd rather skip on you. There is no test but I want 2-3 years if you take 9 months or more to get going and I'd be foolish if I didn't want more. Lots of programmers think they are 10x but few are. Even my best senior engineers took 2-3 months to settle in and contribute more than they take and juniors are bigger gamble. The best proxy now is will you spend 1 hour on a simple set of tests, if not you are not serious or are shopping for counteroffers.
- filoleg 4y ago
  More like, sounds like the parent comment you replied to has no idea what they are talking about. I worked across a couple big tech companies mentioned in the thread, and I've met maybe a couple coworkers at most who "devoted their life to the company". And that's across almost a 3-digit number of people i worked with in some capacity over the years. People take vacations often, they work 40 hours a week or less on average (over the year). One big thing about most teams at big tech companies (probably sans Amazon, from what i hear, haven't worked there myself) is the work/life balance being an important priority. We had a manager giving stern talks to the few teammates who would reply to work emails on their days off ("you left for a week of vacation in Hawaii, why are you replying to work emails or even brought your work laptop with you? Please stop doing that and enjoy your vacation, everything will be totally fine when you come back."). I don't even care to defend any company, that's their problem. But seeing the whole "cultism" and "expected to dedicate your life to the employer" accusations just make me feel like I am reading some alternate timeline fiction story.
  - colinmhayes 4y ago
    I didn't mean it in a "cultism" way at all. I was more saying that the point of leetcode isn't to discover if someone is a great engineer but to discover if they are capable of becoming one. Big tech figures if you're capable of becoming a great engineer you either already are due to experience or soon will be because they'll make you into one. They've decided things like ability to devote time to a meaningless skill that is required to get the job, attention to detail, and problem solving skills are what is required to become a great engineer and see that letcode is a good way to test for those things at massive scale.
mikymoothrowa 4y ago
> an quickly learn new skills. That's exactly what leetcode tests for I don’t know where people get this idea. Leetcode used to test programming proficiency I feel the only reason companies continue to take leetcode to absurd levels is because (a) they think harder questions would get them better engineers and (b) other companies are doing it
- dijit 4y ago
  > Leetcode used to test programming proficiency The discussion is exactly this, that leetcode is used to test programming proficiency, but it's an inadequate bar. The parent is postulating that it's a lie; that actually leetcode tests for malleability, and we're getting bent out of shape because we think it's a poor test of coding ability. However it might be a good test of malleability, and that might actually be it's intended purpose, but that's not communicated.
  - nowherebeen 4y ago
    I don't know about malleability, but I know Big Tech uses it to filter down the number of applicants. They get 200 applications in an hour so HR needs a way to pick a few that won't get them sued.
    - mikymoothrowa 4y ago
      Understandable when big tech does this. 200 person tech companies are doing the same.
- tlextrait 4y ago
  Not quite but almost: Leetcode doesn't evaluate programming proficiency but ability to solve complex and abstract problems using programming. Doing so doesn't require being good at programming but being good at solving problems, and doing so using a programming language. It doesn't require knowing a language well, but only well enough to solve the problem.
  - 4y ago
AshamedCaptain 4y ago
> Really the answer is either commit to the grind or go for a job at a non-tech company. There is quite a world outside these mammoths Google/Facebook/Amazon/(MS, depending on how their IBMization is going these days) and their minions/wannabes. Personally I would not work for any of these even if they paid me in gold bars.
- mikymoothrowa 4y ago
  Off topic: what’s this IBMization at Microsoft?
depr 4y ago
I appreciate the cynicism but isn't it more likely that they use it just because everybody uses it?
- samhw 4y ago
  Yeah, it's clear these people have never hired for a company. I've sat in on a thousand hiring committees, helped design these processes, all that boring shit, and the idea that someone would say "let's do Leetcode challenges so that we select for people who are willing to subordinate their lives to our company" – presumably followed by a "mwahahaha!" – is fantasy, it's something out of a movie. I mean, look, it sucks when you can't get a job. I've been there (when I briefly tried to escape programming for a different metier) and it's awful. But pretending that the entire outside world is a dark mass of malevolent forces arrayed against you.. well, it may be psychically necessary in some Freudian, Jungian sentence, to prevent ego death or whatever, but in the long run it's neither (a) true (obviously), and (b) nor is it going to do your mind and mindset any good.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - VictorPath 4y ago
    > But pretending that the entire outside world is a dark mass of malevolent forces arrayed against you.. well, it may be psychically necessary in some Freudian, Jungian sentence, to prevent ego death or whatever, but in the long run it's neither (a) true (obviously), and (b) nor is it going to do your mind and mindset any good. Maybe you can post this in the endless Russia threads posted here, which seem to have crowded out the endless China threads. I guess what you're saying is that apprehension about the motives of of corporate executives is so irrational, it's akin to a psychological problem.
    - neonsunset 4y ago
      It is low of you to conflate the two. While both companies and russia pursue goals in somewhat pragmatic manner, the former aims to maximize profit while the latter aims to execute an entire nation and take their resources with calculated brutality (most war crimes committed were under direct orders).
mountainriver 4y ago
Yup exactly, that’s the whole thing. They want people who will devote their lives to meaningless tasks
Hermitian909 4y ago
> They're looking for people who will devote their life to the company and can quickly learn new skills This doesn't reflect my lived experience in SV. People I know who learned leetcode skills and got into big companies usually work less than people who passed more practical tests and get into smaller companies. I'd say big companies are trying to hire employees who are a "good" mix of: 1. Smart 2. Conscientious / willing to work hard on the right things 3. Existing CS knowledge you know well enough to explain and apply. For some vague handwavy definition of "good" (2) is probably worth expanding a bit. Many people are willing to work very hard on the wrong thing, this extends to engineering. As an example, a common failure pattern you might see is someone constantly struggling with how React works and what they really need to do is sit down and read the ~15 pages of documentation. But they never do, and just keep putting in 10 hour days with subpar output. I've met some legit geniuses (think Putnam winner) for whom basically no studying was required to pass these interviews. Companies paying top dollar are happy to have them. For people like who are less smart and need to dedicate ~100-200 hours of focused studying and practice, companies paying top dollar are happy to take our mix of smarts and willingness to do that work. But once in the company I haven't noticed any expectation to "devote my life" to it.
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  Right, I think you've explained it better than me. I was just going for the idea that the point of leetcode isn't to figure out if someone is currently a great engineer, but if they have what it takes to become one. Everyone complaining that leetcode isn't related to their day to day job is missing the point.

nowherebeen 4y ago

> devote their life Sounds like they are trying to breed a cult...

tfigment 4y ago
They are exaggerating but not all wrong. As hiring manager my job is not to train you for your next job. I'm hiring for productivity and that takes time. If you are going to jump ship before you "pay" back the company then I'd rather skip on you. There is no test but I want 2-3 years if you take 9 months or more to get going and I'd be foolish if I didn't want more. Lots of programmers think they are 10x but few are. Even my best senior engineers took 2-3 months to settle in and contribute more than they take and juniors are bigger gamble. The best proxy now is will you spend 1 hour on a simple set of tests, if not you are not serious or are shopping for counteroffers.
filoleg 4y ago
More like, sounds like the parent comment you replied to has no idea what they are talking about. I worked across a couple big tech companies mentioned in the thread, and I've met maybe a couple coworkers at most who "devoted their life to the company". And that's across almost a 3-digit number of people i worked with in some capacity over the years. People take vacations often, they work 40 hours a week or less on average (over the year). One big thing about most teams at big tech companies (probably sans Amazon, from what i hear, haven't worked there myself) is the work/life balance being an important priority. We had a manager giving stern talks to the few teammates who would reply to work emails on their days off ("you left for a week of vacation in Hawaii, why are you replying to work emails or even brought your work laptop with you? Please stop doing that and enjoy your vacation, everything will be totally fine when you come back."). I don't even care to defend any company, that's their problem. But seeing the whole "cultism" and "expected to dedicate your life to the employer" accusations just make me feel like I am reading some alternate timeline fiction story.
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  I didn't mean it in a "cultism" way at all. I was more saying that the point of leetcode isn't to discover if someone is a great engineer but to discover if they are capable of becoming one. Big tech figures if you're capable of becoming a great engineer you either already are due to experience or soon will be because they'll make you into one. They've decided things like ability to devote time to a meaningless skill that is required to get the job, attention to detail, and problem solving skills are what is required to become a great engineer and see that letcode is a good way to test for those things at massive scale.

mikymoothrowa 4y ago

> an quickly learn new skills. That's exactly what leetcode tests for I don’t know where people get this idea. Leetcode used to test programming proficiency I feel the only reason companies continue to take leetcode to absurd levels is because (a) they think harder questions would get them better engineers and (b) other companies are doing it

dijit 4y ago
> Leetcode used to test programming proficiency The discussion is exactly this, that leetcode is used to test programming proficiency, but it's an inadequate bar. The parent is postulating that it's a lie; that actually leetcode tests for malleability, and we're getting bent out of shape because we think it's a poor test of coding ability. However it might be a good test of malleability, and that might actually be it's intended purpose, but that's not communicated.
- nowherebeen 4y ago
  I don't know about malleability, but I know Big Tech uses it to filter down the number of applicants. They get 200 applications in an hour so HR needs a way to pick a few that won't get them sued.
  - mikymoothrowa 4y ago
    Understandable when big tech does this. 200 person tech companies are doing the same.
tlextrait 4y ago
Not quite but almost: Leetcode doesn't evaluate programming proficiency but ability to solve complex and abstract problems using programming. Doing so doesn't require being good at programming but being good at solving problems, and doing so using a programming language. It doesn't require knowing a language well, but only well enough to solve the problem.
- 4y ago

AshamedCaptain 4y ago

> Really the answer is either commit to the grind or go for a job at a non-tech company. There is quite a world outside these mammoths Google/Facebook/Amazon/(MS, depending on how their IBMization is going these days) and their minions/wannabes. Personally I would not work for any of these even if they paid me in gold bars.

mikymoothrowa 4y ago
Off topic: what’s this IBMization at Microsoft?

depr 4y ago

I appreciate the cynicism but isn't it more likely that they use it just because everybody uses it?

samhw 4y ago
Yeah, it's clear these people have never hired for a company. I've sat in on a thousand hiring committees, helped design these processes, all that boring shit, and the idea that someone would say "let's do Leetcode challenges so that we select for people who are willing to subordinate their lives to our company" – presumably followed by a "mwahahaha!" – is fantasy, it's something out of a movie. I mean, look, it sucks when you can't get a job. I've been there (when I briefly tried to escape programming for a different metier) and it's awful. But pretending that the entire outside world is a dark mass of malevolent forces arrayed against you.. well, it may be psychically necessary in some Freudian, Jungian sentence, to prevent ego death or whatever, but in the long run it's neither (a) true (obviously), and (b) nor is it going to do your mind and mindset any good.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- VictorPath 4y ago
  > But pretending that the entire outside world is a dark mass of malevolent forces arrayed against you.. well, it may be psychically necessary in some Freudian, Jungian sentence, to prevent ego death or whatever, but in the long run it's neither (a) true (obviously), and (b) nor is it going to do your mind and mindset any good. Maybe you can post this in the endless Russia threads posted here, which seem to have crowded out the endless China threads. I guess what you're saying is that apprehension about the motives of of corporate executives is so irrational, it's akin to a psychological problem.
  - neonsunset 4y ago
    It is low of you to conflate the two. While both companies and russia pursue goals in somewhat pragmatic manner, the former aims to maximize profit while the latter aims to execute an entire nation and take their resources with calculated brutality (most war crimes committed were under direct orders).

mountainriver 4y ago

Yup exactly, that’s the whole thing. They want people who will devote their lives to meaningless tasks

Hermitian909 4y ago

> They're looking for people who will devote their life to the company and can quickly learn new skills This doesn't reflect my lived experience in SV. People I know who learned leetcode skills and got into big companies usually work less than people who passed more practical tests and get into smaller companies. I'd say big companies are trying to hire employees who are a "good" mix of: 1. Smart 2. Conscientious / willing to work hard on the right things 3. Existing CS knowledge you know well enough to explain and apply. For some vague handwavy definition of "good" (2) is probably worth expanding a bit. Many people are willing to work very hard on the wrong thing, this extends to engineering. As an example, a common failure pattern you might see is someone constantly struggling with how React works and what they really need to do is sit down and read the ~15 pages of documentation. But they never do, and just keep putting in 10 hour days with subpar output. I've met some legit geniuses (think Putnam winner) for whom basically no studying was required to pass these interviews. Companies paying top dollar are happy to have them. For people like who are less smart and need to dedicate ~100-200 hours of focused studying and practice, companies paying top dollar are happy to take our mix of smarts and willingness to do that work. But once in the company I haven't noticed any expectation to "devote my life" to it.

colinmhayes 4y ago
Right, I think you've explained it better than me. I was just going for the idea that the point of leetcode isn't to figure out if someone is currently a great engineer, but if they have what it takes to become one. Everyone complaining that leetcode isn't related to their day to day job is missing the point.