What counts as gaming? In my physics degree, for coding courses, we were allowed to use library algorithms directly provided we cited them. We were mostly teste

What counts as gaming? In my physics degree, for coding courses, we were allowed to use library algorithms directly provided we cited them. We were mostly tested on how (not) buggy and usable our program was. If you don't care what tools were used or how the solution came up, then that shouldn't be a problem. If someone writes "perfect" code from a take-home, you can ask them to explain what they did (and if they used GPT, explain how they checked it). Then ask them to extend or discuss what the issues are and how they'd fix it. I think asking some probing questions about past projects is normally enough to discern bullshit. You do need to be good at interviewing though. If you really want an excellent candidate then there's the FANG approach of (perhaps unfairly) filtering people who don't perform well in timed interviews, provided your rubric is good and you have enough candidates to compare to. There is a trade off there. Grad positions optimise for what you can test - people are unlikely to have lots of side projects or work experience so you end up seeing how well they learned Algorithms 101. For someone who's worked for 10 years asking about system design in the context of their work is more useful. Note that PhD and academic positions very rarely ask for this sort of stuff. Even if you don't have publications. They might run through a sample problem or theory (if it's even relevant), but I've never had to code to get a postdoc. Otherwise you put people on short probation periods and be prepared to let them go.