3 ms·

For context, I'm a pre-seed startup CTO and ex Googler who's probably conducted 50-100 interviews. In short, "it gives some signal, it's easy, it requires less

For context, I'm a pre-seed startup CTO and ex Googler who's probably conducted 50-100 interviews. In short, "it gives some signal, it's easy, it requires less infra, and it's common so people won't criticize you for it". - It gives some signal: I can generally rule out people who are clearly unable to write basic code (loops, good variable names, not getting lost while retracing code). In my experience, this camp accounts for some 80%+ of the people coming in for interviews, even at Google. - It's easy: the up-front costs of asking a Leetcode-type question are low. As an interviewer, I can prepare for such an interview well with 2-3 hours of question searching and an hour or so of doing the question myself. Contrast this with "closer to real" interview questions, where you may create an entire "fake project" for candidates to work in which may get leaked. It could easily take 10-20 hours to think of a "right size project" with natural extensions for candidates, which is an eternity as a hiring manager that's hiring because they're strapped for time - It requires less infra: you don't need any sort of "shared environment to see and run code", timers to ensure that people don't spend too long on take home questions. All you need is a shared notepad or white board - It's common so people won't criticize you for it: "Nobody ever got fired for choosing Microsoft". These types of things have a self-perpetuating nature where people cargo cult what works for large successful companies. I don't at all endorse asking these types of interview questions and agree that there are better ones, but I do think it's important to acknowledge there are real reasons why they get asked.

volkk 4y ago
> where you may create an entire "fake project" for candidates to work in which may get leaked. as opposed to entire companies created (read: interviewkickstart) that allow people to practice and memorize/study these types of questions in order to game the system? i'm not really sure how this provides any kind of signal other than that this person has the willpower and spend thousands of $$$ to sit through hours of mindnumbing LC practice. bleh. > It's easy: the up-front costs of asking a Leetcode-type question are low. sounds exactly like "we take the costs of interviewing and push it on the interviewers bc we are too lazy or don't find it important enough to prepare effective interviews so instead we expect that you waste hours after work and on weekends to study for our interviews." no wonder blind has threads like "i am pipped everywhere i go but i can destroy LC interviews." the whole thing is setup for people like that to thrive. our industry is a joke in that perspective.
- buscoquadnary 4y ago
  I agree LC sucks, but given the reasonable argument made by the parent it seems it is the least bad to a large extant. Unless you have an idea for a better system? I mean interviewing isn't a value add activity, and so you wouldn't want expensive employees spending an enormous amount of time doing it, and if you hire a professional to just do that, congratulations you just invented the HR department, and putting them at the front of your hiring pipeline sucks for everyone involved. Leetcode sucks but I'll take it any day because it at least means the person has some idea of how to evaluate the job in comparison to some HR drone that writes down I'm an experienced front end developer because I have 10 years experience in Java.
faangiq 4y ago
Agree as a fellow faangchad

volkk 4y ago

> where you may create an entire "fake project" for candidates to work in which may get leaked. as opposed to entire companies created (read: interviewkickstart) that allow people to practice and memorize/study these types of questions in order to game the system? i'm not really sure how this provides any kind of signal other than that this person has the willpower and spend thousands of $$$ to sit through hours of mindnumbing LC practice. bleh. > It's easy: the up-front costs of asking a Leetcode-type question are low. sounds exactly like "we take the costs of interviewing and push it on the interviewers bc we are too lazy or don't find it important enough to prepare effective interviews so instead we expect that you waste hours after work and on weekends to study for our interviews." no wonder blind has threads like "i am pipped everywhere i go but i can destroy LC interviews." the whole thing is setup for people like that to thrive. our industry is a joke in that perspective.

buscoquadnary 4y ago
I agree LC sucks, but given the reasonable argument made by the parent it seems it is the least bad to a large extant. Unless you have an idea for a better system? I mean interviewing isn't a value add activity, and so you wouldn't want expensive employees spending an enormous amount of time doing it, and if you hire a professional to just do that, congratulations you just invented the HR department, and putting them at the front of your hiring pipeline sucks for everyone involved. Leetcode sucks but I'll take it any day because it at least means the person has some idea of how to evaluate the job in comparison to some HR drone that writes down I'm an experienced front end developer because I have 10 years experience in Java.

faangiq 4y ago

Agree as a fellow faangchad