> extreme aptitude at a certain type of programming If you are hiring for aptitude in that type of programming, great. If not, it really doesn't tell you muc

> extreme aptitude at a certain type of programming If you are hiring for aptitude in that type of programming, great. If not, it really doesn't tell you much. > enthusiasm, dedication, high stress performance, teamwork It is definitely a good way, but not the only way, to show these intangibles. > Of course, you won't be able to take someone with an incredibly high capability for understanding complex graph algorithms and plonk them in to every job (front-end stuff might go poorly), but chances are they'll be able to find something to their liking at Google, Facebook etc fairly easily. And yet Google makes their hire/no hire decisions on all software engineers using the exact same interview gauntlet. They give the impression that a software engineer is someone they can plonk into any job. That is my frustration with the industry in its current state. Software engineering is a complex area of practice and, in my opinion, has outgrown the notion of the universal software engineer. Software engineering needs to develop true specializations, like electrical engineering, and evaluate people based on their area of expertise. The type of coding these programming competitions exercise is just one specialization, albeit a very important specialization for certain classes of problem. For the record, I am not trying to belittle the achievements of those who excel at competitive programming. In fact, I think its awesome and these kids will be valuable contributors to the profession later. My argument is against the notion that programming like this should be viewed as prototypical and expected of anyone who wants to be considered good at software engineering.