4 ms·

Sorry, but no. I refuse. The industry can continue to pump out subpar solutions with their toxic culture until the VC money dries up. Out of principle I will no

Sorry, but no. I refuse. The industry can continue to pump out subpar solutions with their toxic culture until the VC money dries up. Out of principle I will not memorize your LC problems. I won't deny it's a great filter for getting the exact type of people that will tolerate, enable, and expand this culture.

boredtofears 4y ago
When the VC money dries up I expect things to get worse, not better for candidates.
PragmaticPulp 4y ago
Which is fine! Nobody has to do LC and nobody has to apply to companies that use LC interviews. The reality is that when most people sit down and think about the math behind the finances, avoiding LC on principle comes with a massive opportunity cost that can exceed millions of dollars over the span of a career. Which again, totally fine if that's not your thing, but we should still let people know what's at stake.
- netizen-936824 4y ago
  The reality is that's only from one super limited perspective and fails to consider the ideals of the applicant and how they think companies should operate ethically. Becoming wealthy isn't the only thing in life, this includes considering which companies you're willing to work for based on how they operate and what they do. If we constantly have people buying into a damaging system just for the money, it compounds issues and they get worse down the road
- ethanwillis 4y ago
  I agree, it is fine if people choose to do this! It doesn't change my perspective on it however. There is definitely an opportunity cost. However, not in all cases. A single developer who is talented can take a variety of paths outside of this system to make significant or more money. I'm going to get ahead of the idea of the risk of stability and the implication I'm saying a software developer would be banking on risk/reward of a technology startup. I'd like to say that they can also use all the skills and knowledge of a software developer in a non-tech company with great success and similar or higher compensation with similar risk profiles.
  - bradlys 4y ago
    > A single developer who is talented can take a variety of paths outside of this system to make significant or more money. Please write a post about this then. I'd love to know roles that are regularly paying $500k+/yr.
mountainriver 4y ago
Agree, I’ll do literally anything than buy into this nonsense. You can take your crappy devs that memorized Leetcode problems and I’ll stick with people who solve actual problems and can demonstrate it. Leetcode isn’t a good measure and will be phased out in coming years as this is realized.
- hiq 4y ago
  > Leetcode isn’t a good measure and will be phased out in coming years as this is realized. Given how long it's been around and the lack of credible alternatives for hiring at scale, I'm having doubts.
  - mountainriver 4y ago
    It _hasn't_ been around long, this is a recent phenomenon in the last 3-5 years, and its a cargo cult like so many other things in tech. It doesn't work well because most of the really bad engineers I know just grind leetcode and end up at FAANG. This will be seen in time
    - hiq 4y ago
      CtCI has been first published in 2008, meaning that such interviews had already been widespread for a few years by then. Since then, websites like Leetcode have apparently become viable as businesses. As a career choice, I find it unwise to bet on this practice disappearing anytime soon.
kjeetgill 4y ago
> their toxic culture until the VC > Out of principle I will not memorize your LC problems. I won't deny it's a great filter for getting the exact type of people that will tolerate, enable, and expand this culture. Hm. I hope this comes of gently - I don't know you, your skills, your background, your experience or your goals for that matter - but this feels overdramatic and even a little condescending. If you have your CS fundamentals together it really shouldn't be that much effort? I know some whiteboard interviewers will ask unreasonably obscure algorithms, but LC hasn't ever been that unreasonable. I really don't get the absolute vitro people have. Sure it's not an ideal measure - but hey: eat your vegetables. It's not some unfathomable distant unrelated set of hoops to jump through. LC questions can be a little bit of a chore but I've never spent more than an hour or two brushing up before interview cycles if I reviewed them at all and have done pretty well in my interviews. I've tanked my share of interviews but it's never been so dramatically unreasonable. It's not like they're asking you to write paragraph upon paragraphs on why you'll be the perfect fit and this opportunity is unlike any other for you. Cover letters are at least 70% more bullshit. For context: I joined the industry in 2012 where whiteboard interviews were the normal but before leetcode, hacker rank, etc. were common, but I've interviewed plenty since then.
- ethanwillis 4y ago
  > Cover letters are at least 70% more bullshit Agreed. And yes, on LC problems they are a chore. I've been thinking about this a lot and here is my take on all of this from a different direction that re-inforces my opinion that it is a toxic culture. The fact that developers are required to do a dance and memorize LC problems to regurgitate them in a timed setting is because there is a fundamental lack of trust on the hiring side. This is actually offensive. Now, we might say, okay well LC problem regurgitations provide actionable signal. Definitely more than a cover letter! But is it a significant signal for software production ability? I don't think it is except in cases where the domain is well-trod. I get why we need some kind of signal with the current way employment and hiring is structured. We need something actionable, something to build trust. But I think that's the problem. Trust should come first, otherwise we enter this current world where hiring is slow, fraught with problems, no one can fill their positions (and I don't think it's for lack of a talent pool). I haven't through all of the implications of this part yet, but here is where I'm at. VC backed companies and VC backed company copycats will say they are doing all of this to avoid false positives. All so they don't waste their time on the Wrong hires. How long does it really take to know, when actually working with someone, that they are the wrong hire? Not long in my experience. Let's say 1 month. Just hire people on a temporary basis, pay them, it's a more ethical take home project in a way. And what is the current state? Well the current state is filtering so harsh on a low significance signal that it takes a company many months to fill a position. Are our assumptions about the false negative rate so wrong that it's actually very high? I think so. I've had some pushback on the hire fast, fire fast methodology before as being bad for candidates. However, I don't think it's any worse than the current experience they receive.

boredtofears 4y ago

When the VC money dries up I expect things to get worse, not better for candidates.

PragmaticPulp 4y ago

Which is fine! Nobody has to do LC and nobody has to apply to companies that use LC interviews. The reality is that when most people sit down and think about the math behind the finances, avoiding LC on principle comes with a massive opportunity cost that can exceed millions of dollars over the span of a career. Which again, totally fine if that's not your thing, but we should still let people know what's at stake.

netizen-936824 4y ago
The reality is that's only from one super limited perspective and fails to consider the ideals of the applicant and how they think companies should operate ethically. Becoming wealthy isn't the only thing in life, this includes considering which companies you're willing to work for based on how they operate and what they do. If we constantly have people buying into a damaging system just for the money, it compounds issues and they get worse down the road
ethanwillis 4y ago
I agree, it is fine if people choose to do this! It doesn't change my perspective on it however. There is definitely an opportunity cost. However, not in all cases. A single developer who is talented can take a variety of paths outside of this system to make significant or more money. I'm going to get ahead of the idea of the risk of stability and the implication I'm saying a software developer would be banking on risk/reward of a technology startup. I'd like to say that they can also use all the skills and knowledge of a software developer in a non-tech company with great success and similar or higher compensation with similar risk profiles.
- bradlys 4y ago
  > A single developer who is talented can take a variety of paths outside of this system to make significant or more money. Please write a post about this then. I'd love to know roles that are regularly paying $500k+/yr.

mountainriver 4y ago

Agree, I’ll do literally anything than buy into this nonsense. You can take your crappy devs that memorized Leetcode problems and I’ll stick with people who solve actual problems and can demonstrate it. Leetcode isn’t a good measure and will be phased out in coming years as this is realized.

hiq 4y ago
> Leetcode isn’t a good measure and will be phased out in coming years as this is realized. Given how long it's been around and the lack of credible alternatives for hiring at scale, I'm having doubts.
- mountainriver 4y ago
  It _hasn't_ been around long, this is a recent phenomenon in the last 3-5 years, and its a cargo cult like so many other things in tech. It doesn't work well because most of the really bad engineers I know just grind leetcode and end up at FAANG. This will be seen in time
  - hiq 4y ago
    CtCI has been first published in 2008, meaning that such interviews had already been widespread for a few years by then. Since then, websites like Leetcode have apparently become viable as businesses. As a career choice, I find it unwise to bet on this practice disappearing anytime soon.

kjeetgill 4y ago

> their toxic culture until the VC > Out of principle I will not memorize your LC problems. I won't deny it's a great filter for getting the exact type of people that will tolerate, enable, and expand this culture. Hm. I hope this comes of gently - I don't know you, your skills, your background, your experience or your goals for that matter - but this feels overdramatic and even a little condescending. If you have your CS fundamentals together it really shouldn't be that much effort? I know some whiteboard interviewers will ask unreasonably obscure algorithms, but LC hasn't ever been that unreasonable. I really don't get the absolute vitro people have. Sure it's not an ideal measure - but hey: eat your vegetables. It's not some unfathomable distant unrelated set of hoops to jump through. LC questions can be a little bit of a chore but I've never spent more than an hour or two brushing up before interview cycles if I reviewed them at all and have done pretty well in my interviews. I've tanked my share of interviews but it's never been so dramatically unreasonable. It's not like they're asking you to write paragraph upon paragraphs on why you'll be the perfect fit and this opportunity is unlike any other for you. Cover letters are at least 70% more bullshit. For context: I joined the industry in 2012 where whiteboard interviews were the normal but before leetcode, hacker rank, etc. were common, but I've interviewed plenty since then.

ethanwillis 4y ago
> Cover letters are at least 70% more bullshit Agreed. And yes, on LC problems they are a chore. I've been thinking about this a lot and here is my take on all of this from a different direction that re-inforces my opinion that it is a toxic culture. The fact that developers are required to do a dance and memorize LC problems to regurgitate them in a timed setting is because there is a fundamental lack of trust on the hiring side. This is actually offensive. Now, we might say, okay well LC problem regurgitations provide actionable signal. Definitely more than a cover letter! But is it a significant signal for software production ability? I don't think it is except in cases where the domain is well-trod. I get why we need some kind of signal with the current way employment and hiring is structured. We need something actionable, something to build trust. But I think that's the problem. Trust should come first, otherwise we enter this current world where hiring is slow, fraught with problems, no one can fill their positions (and I don't think it's for lack of a talent pool). I haven't through all of the implications of this part yet, but here is where I'm at. VC backed companies and VC backed company copycats will say they are doing all of this to avoid false positives. All so they don't waste their time on the Wrong hires. How long does it really take to know, when actually working with someone, that they are the wrong hire? Not long in my experience. Let's say 1 month. Just hire people on a temporary basis, pay them, it's a more ethical take home project in a way. And what is the current state? Well the current state is filtering so harsh on a low significance signal that it takes a company many months to fill a position. Are our assumptions about the false negative rate so wrong that it's actually very high? I think so. I've had some pushback on the hire fast, fire fast methodology before as being bad for candidates. However, I don't think it's any worse than the current experience they receive.