10 ms·

Every unicorny startup I've interviewed w/ that had a standard big-tech interview loop (1 LC style screener + final w/ 2-3 rounds of LC + 1 system design) was c

Every unicorny startup I've interviewed w/ that had a standard big-tech interview loop (1 LC style screener + final w/ 2-3 rounds of LC + 1 system design) was chock full of ex-big tech engineers and managers, replete with stories about wanting a faster paced / dynamic environment. So yes, that absolutely is who they are recruiting. It probably comes down to no more than believing big tech companies have the very best in the industry (ie. like being in an Ivy League school) and standardizing the hiring bar w/ other companies they're actively in competition with. More than obedience, it probably is the aspect that they're smart and determined to succeed.

s17n 4y ago
> More than obedience, it probably is the aspect that they're smart and determined to succeed. Yup that's what it's about! The problem with trying to test how good you are at the job is that you simply can't do it in a 1 hour (or even a 1 day) interview. You can however assess how smart somebody is, which is definitely correlated to job performance. It's also connected to growth potential - even if it were somehow possible to accurately measure how good a programmer a candidate is at the moment they are applying for the job, companies would still want to try to predict how good they are likely to be over the next few years.
- biztos 4y ago
  > You can however assess how smart somebody is Are you saying the Leetcode-style interview assesses how smart someone is?
  - adsfoiu1 4y ago
    Not OP, and I don't think it directly indicates how smart you are, but it does show you are at or above some smartness threshold (i.e. smart enough to get the answer). If you don't get the answer, you might still be above that smartness threshold, but didn't get it for some other reason (didn't have time to study, didn't sleep enough the night before, interview anxiety, etc.).
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - l33t2328 4y ago
    Yes, being able to understand and apply algorithms and data structures requires some intelligence. I know we try to stay away from the “we’re smarter than you” vibe here because it’s gross, but pretending leetcode style questions don’t require some degree of complex thought is absurd.
    - memonkey 4y ago
      You can memorize a lot of them and forget everything in a year.
      - dilyevsky 4y ago
        If enough people are doing it higher iq folks will bubble up in calibration
        nowherebeen 4y ago
        Which at the end of the day still doesn't test that you can do the job.
        dilyevsky 4y ago
        Ok but it does tho - all other things being equal and you better believe it they do have other type of interviews not just lc
        nowherebeen 4y ago
        Ok, tell me what other types of interviews do they do other than system design, leetcode, and behaviorial for engineering?
        dilyevsky 4y ago
        Lol yeah apart from sanitation, the medicine, education, wine and public order what have the romans ever done to us? In your view that’s not enough to make an informed eng hire?
- weatherlite 4y ago
  > You can however assess how smart somebody is Why not just give candidates a standard IQ test then? They are probably more reliable than Leetcode...
  - synergy20 4y ago
    IQ does not tell determination/hard-working-attitude at all, in fact many with high IQ ended up being nobody, as high IQ makes learning relatively easier, most got used to that and just let the 'grit' go. leetcode is the SAT for coding, not perfect, but at least it's close to fair play.
    - corrral 4y ago
      > leetcode is the SAT for coding, not perfect, but at least it's close to fair play. It would be amazing if leetcode were like the SAT, and you could just get one good score and then never think about it again. Anything like that would make it much lower-friction to switch between FAANGs (and friends), though, which I suspect is a big part of why they've settled on doing things this way.
      - jxramos 4y ago
        That’s a fascinating idea. Get companies to accept some form of standardized testing and have it be transferable. That would greatly increase the motivation behind its studies I would presume.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        wyclif 4y ago
        Sure it's a great idea and hiring culture would be so much better if it happened, but I think the parent is correct that companies want friction at that point. None of them want to make it easier for talent to jump ship and transfer.
        4y ago
- chris11 4y ago
  And algorithmic questions are a straightforward way to get a scalable, structured interview round. It's difficult to entirely replace algorithmic rounds with questions that are both scalable and structured.
jmvoodoo 4y ago
I wonder which came first? Did they hire those people because they implemented leetcode style interviews, or did they implement those interviews because they originally hired or were founded by ex-bigco folks that simply did what they knew?
- brandall10 4y ago
  I notice quite a few early stage startups that recruit w/ large initial funding rounds (ie. a $20-40M series A) almost invariably have a note about how their founders are ex-FAANG. I can't help but believe it helps a ton w/ funding, professional networks, team building, etc. Again, no different than having an Ivy League education. There are big advantages to scope/reach/opportunities in the industry.
  - exdsq 4y ago
    Signaling is definitely a thing!
- jboy55 4y ago
  Perhaps there's another collectively shared work experience that also created leetcode style interviews. That is dealing with someone who has a degree, can speak well of what it takes to code, but who cannot code to save their life. I have known more than a dozen such "engineers". That's the reason you code during an interview, I think the emphasis on optimal O(N) is just a set of engineers who don't believe it should be "that easy" and doesn't really help produce more of a signal. My coding question, for example, You have a music player that should be playing a 900 song list randomly. You notice that you keep hearing a song being repeated during your drive and you are curious if its truly random. You also keep hitting skip in the hopes a particular song comes up. Write a piece of code that simulates this. You should tell me three things; 1) the number of songs played before a repeat occurs 2) how many songs needed to be played before you played them all 3) after you succeed in playing them all, how many times has the most common song been played. You can use libraries if you know them, and you can use the built in sort method in the language, I will google it for you if you don't remember the syntax.
danaris 4y ago
Leetcode doesn't measure "smart and determined to succeed". It measures "has enough extra time and energy to devote to practicing pointless brainteasers for weeks." In other words, whatever it's intended to do, one of its primary functions in practice is to screen out people who are bright, driven...and poor, working long hours and trying to keep themselves and/or their families going.
- brandall10 4y ago
  Weeks? There are stories on Blind and the LC forums of people taking upwards of a year with pretty hefty real-life constraints. And why wouldn't they, given the opportunity to essentially double comp over standard industry jobs? That's a life changing opportunity if you're in a somewhat unfortunate life situation. That it's a bit of a sacrifice is the point. If you're naturally smart enough this stuff comes quickly, great. If not, you're going to have to work for it - that requires discipline most people don't have. Better put, smart and/or determined to succeed.
  - dekhn 4y ago
    Took me about 5 years to get even modestly proficient with medium-level leetcode questions. I'm a slow learner.
    - redisman 4y ago
      I never did a CS degree so much of the learning was decently useful but it also took me years
      - dekhn 4y ago
        I only took 1 CS class in college- Cybernetics with Huffman. I failed! So clearly, that was a strong predictor for my future 12 year career at google (where I failed to do quicksort, or virtual ants problems). Nowadays I take a lot of extra time to come up with questions that aren't in leetcode, are easier than leetcode, and give far more signal than any leetcode would, for anything except for a 10X Staff Engineer.
bodge5000 4y ago
> More than obedience, it probably is the aspect that they're smart and determined to succeed. Depending on your definition of success, I'd say determined to succeed could well be the same thing as obidience.
DragonStrength 4y ago
Yes, I agree they're relying on post-hoc reasoning to justify their own place in the industry. All of the grade inflation stories about Ivy League and similar schools and personal experience in the industry with these types don't give me a lot of confidence in the present value of those school names if the dynamics of VC funding change a bit.

s17n 4y ago

> More than obedience, it probably is the aspect that they're smart and determined to succeed. Yup that's what it's about! The problem with trying to test how good you are at the job is that you simply can't do it in a 1 hour (or even a 1 day) interview. You can however assess how smart somebody is, which is definitely correlated to job performance. It's also connected to growth potential - even if it were somehow possible to accurately measure how good a programmer a candidate is at the moment they are applying for the job, companies would still want to try to predict how good they are likely to be over the next few years.

biztos 4y ago
> You can however assess how smart somebody is Are you saying the Leetcode-style interview assesses how smart someone is?
- adsfoiu1 4y ago
  Not OP, and I don't think it directly indicates how smart you are, but it does show you are at or above some smartness threshold (i.e. smart enough to get the answer). If you don't get the answer, you might still be above that smartness threshold, but didn't get it for some other reason (didn't have time to study, didn't sleep enough the night before, interview anxiety, etc.).
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- l33t2328 4y ago
  Yes, being able to understand and apply algorithms and data structures requires some intelligence. I know we try to stay away from the “we’re smarter than you” vibe here because it’s gross, but pretending leetcode style questions don’t require some degree of complex thought is absurd.
  - memonkey 4y ago
    You can memorize a lot of them and forget everything in a year.
    - dilyevsky 4y ago
      If enough people are doing it higher iq folks will bubble up in calibration
      - nowherebeen 4y ago
        Which at the end of the day still doesn't test that you can do the job.
        dilyevsky 4y ago
        Ok but it does tho - all other things being equal and you better believe it they do have other type of interviews not just lc
        nowherebeen 4y ago
        Ok, tell me what other types of interviews do they do other than system design, leetcode, and behaviorial for engineering?
        dilyevsky 4y ago
        Lol yeah apart from sanitation, the medicine, education, wine and public order what have the romans ever done to us? In your view that’s not enough to make an informed eng hire?
weatherlite 4y ago
> You can however assess how smart somebody is Why not just give candidates a standard IQ test then? They are probably more reliable than Leetcode...
- synergy20 4y ago
  IQ does not tell determination/hard-working-attitude at all, in fact many with high IQ ended up being nobody, as high IQ makes learning relatively easier, most got used to that and just let the 'grit' go. leetcode is the SAT for coding, not perfect, but at least it's close to fair play.
  - corrral 4y ago
    > leetcode is the SAT for coding, not perfect, but at least it's close to fair play. It would be amazing if leetcode were like the SAT, and you could just get one good score and then never think about it again. Anything like that would make it much lower-friction to switch between FAANGs (and friends), though, which I suspect is a big part of why they've settled on doing things this way.
    - jxramos 4y ago
      That’s a fascinating idea. Get companies to accept some form of standardized testing and have it be transferable. That would greatly increase the motivation behind its studies I would presume.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - wyclif 4y ago
        Sure it's a great idea and hiring culture would be so much better if it happened, but I think the parent is correct that companies want friction at that point. None of them want to make it easier for talent to jump ship and transfer.
      - 4y ago
chris11 4y ago
And algorithmic questions are a straightforward way to get a scalable, structured interview round. It's difficult to entirely replace algorithmic rounds with questions that are both scalable and structured.

jmvoodoo 4y ago

I wonder which came first? Did they hire those people because they implemented leetcode style interviews, or did they implement those interviews because they originally hired or were founded by ex-bigco folks that simply did what they knew?

brandall10 4y ago
I notice quite a few early stage startups that recruit w/ large initial funding rounds (ie. a $20-40M series A) almost invariably have a note about how their founders are ex-FAANG. I can't help but believe it helps a ton w/ funding, professional networks, team building, etc. Again, no different than having an Ivy League education. There are big advantages to scope/reach/opportunities in the industry.
- exdsq 4y ago
  Signaling is definitely a thing!
jboy55 4y ago
Perhaps there's another collectively shared work experience that also created leetcode style interviews. That is dealing with someone who has a degree, can speak well of what it takes to code, but who cannot code to save their life. I have known more than a dozen such "engineers". That's the reason you code during an interview, I think the emphasis on optimal O(N) is just a set of engineers who don't believe it should be "that easy" and doesn't really help produce more of a signal. My coding question, for example, You have a music player that should be playing a 900 song list randomly. You notice that you keep hearing a song being repeated during your drive and you are curious if its truly random. You also keep hitting skip in the hopes a particular song comes up. Write a piece of code that simulates this. You should tell me three things; 1) the number of songs played before a repeat occurs 2) how many songs needed to be played before you played them all 3) after you succeed in playing them all, how many times has the most common song been played. You can use libraries if you know them, and you can use the built in sort method in the language, I will google it for you if you don't remember the syntax.

danaris 4y ago

Leetcode doesn't measure "smart and determined to succeed". It measures "has enough extra time and energy to devote to practicing pointless brainteasers for weeks." In other words, whatever it's intended to do, one of its primary functions in practice is to screen out people who are bright, driven...and poor, working long hours and trying to keep themselves and/or their families going.

brandall10 4y ago
Weeks? There are stories on Blind and the LC forums of people taking upwards of a year with pretty hefty real-life constraints. And why wouldn't they, given the opportunity to essentially double comp over standard industry jobs? That's a life changing opportunity if you're in a somewhat unfortunate life situation. That it's a bit of a sacrifice is the point. If you're naturally smart enough this stuff comes quickly, great. If not, you're going to have to work for it - that requires discipline most people don't have. Better put, smart and/or determined to succeed.
- dekhn 4y ago
  Took me about 5 years to get even modestly proficient with medium-level leetcode questions. I'm a slow learner.
  - redisman 4y ago
    I never did a CS degree so much of the learning was decently useful but it also took me years
    - dekhn 4y ago
      I only took 1 CS class in college- Cybernetics with Huffman. I failed! So clearly, that was a strong predictor for my future 12 year career at google (where I failed to do quicksort, or virtual ants problems). Nowadays I take a lot of extra time to come up with questions that aren't in leetcode, are easier than leetcode, and give far more signal than any leetcode would, for anything except for a 10X Staff Engineer.

bodge5000 4y ago

> More than obedience, it probably is the aspect that they're smart and determined to succeed. Depending on your definition of success, I'd say determined to succeed could well be the same thing as obidience.

DragonStrength 4y ago

Yes, I agree they're relying on post-hoc reasoning to justify their own place in the industry. All of the grade inflation stories about Ivy League and similar schools and personal experience in the industry with these types don't give me a lot of confidence in the present value of those school names if the dynamics of VC funding change a bit.