Even if your typical way of solving problems is via intuition and internal processing, materializing this stage on the whiteboard probably improves your odds in a coding interview. It's not a statement about how things should be, but how things are. Even if this isn't your preferred mode of problem solving, I'm confident that any qualified candidate is capable of doing what was demonstrated in this post, and if they really want the job, they probably should.

> Even if this isn't your preferred mode of problem solving, I'm confident that any qualified candidate is capable of doing what was demonstrated in this post, and if they really want the job, they probably should.

I get that Big Tech jobs are glamorized the way high-paying jobs in Big Law, High Finance, etc. have historically been glamorized, but unlike professions like law and finance, there are lots of opportunities for people with even decent development skills to make really good money today even if they don't work for Big Tech.

As an example, my friend's son is making well over $120,000 annually as a freelance PHP developer with a few years of experience. He's in his late 20s, doesn't have a comp sci degree and lives in a lower cost of living city where he's probably at least in the top 5% of earners.

On the flip side, I know people who are hiring for developers and they're more and more flexible, especially in regards to location and remote work, because the demand for decent developers greatly exceeds the supply.

Why someone should feel compelled to pretend that they problem solve differently to ace a whiteboard in this market is beyond me.

I think the late 20s self-taught php freelancer is far less common than big tech engineers. And 120k that is still only a small fraction of what such engineers typically make at the same age. And FAANG jobs are far more secure against recession than freelancing. I don't think it's that complicated why someone would want a FAANG job even in this market. There are other routes to moderate wealth but few as easy and reliable.

This is what I like to call a "Valley Bubble" comment.

There are lots of people working in tech-related jobs at/for companies not named Facebook, Amazon, Apple or Google who earn well above average incomes.

How to make this look like underachievement? Claim that these people are fewer in number than they actually are and suggest that there are hoards of 20-something FAANG engineers making $500,000/year+ such that a freelancer pulling in $120,000 is somehow a loser compared to his peers.

> There are other routes to moderate wealth but few as easy and reliable.

If it was as easy as showing up with a comp sci degree and a heartbeat, why is prepping for whiteboarding interviews even a thing?

You're reading a lot into my comment that's not there. I don't have any disdain for the freelancer in question, and I think it's quite an achievement to be earning $120k without training in the given field. But you said

> "Why someone should feel compelled to pretend that they problem solve differently to ace a whiteboard in this market is beyond me."

and I'm making observations that I feel adequately explain why someone might want to pass a whiteboard interview at a big tech company. It's completely valid to not want to do that as well, but you said that you couldn't understand why someone would want to, and I've explained why someone might.

> If it was as easy as showing up with a comp sci degree and a heartbeat, why is prepping for whiteboarding interviews even a thing?

I didn't say it was easy. I just said there are not other routes I'm aware of that are easier.

> I don't have any disdain for the freelancer in question, and I think it's quite an achievement to be earning $120k without training in the given field.

I was only pointing out that there are a lot more people who earn really good incomes in tech-related fields who don't have formal STEM educations. This isn't as uncommon as your comments seem to suggest.

Frankly, a lot of web and mobile app development doesn't require a computer science degree, nor is a formal computer science education the only form of "training" there is. Heck, assuming computer science curriculums are the same as when I was college-aged, I wouldn't even consider them "training" for a typical development job today.

> I didn't say it was easy. I just said there are not other routes I'm aware of that are easier.

I've dated both a lawyer (who worked at a Big Law firm) and an investment banker (who worked at a bulge bracket firm) in the earliest stages of their careers. Frankly, I don't think making a really good living in these professions is any more difficult than "FAANG worker". Different people have different aptitudes and when someone aligns his or her aptitudes to his or her career choices, everything sort of looks "easy".

> Frankly, I don't think making a really good living in these professions is any more difficult than "FAANG worker."

That doesn't match the reports of work life balance I have heard from practitioners of those professions vs. practitioners of programming. But I don't have any reliable, objective evidence to share on this point of view.

I'd say far more common, actually. The vast majority of the worlds engineers do not work for big tech. Also, most of the engineers I've worked with never got comp sci education, or even any related education. They all learned on their own or via courses / bootcamps. And what is moderate wealth anyway? Most engineers I know who have 5+ years of experience are easily in the top 3% of earners in their countries. I'd say that's pretty decent moderate wealth.