It's more level than literally everything else that pays comparatively. At least the single mom in Philly won't have the fact that she didn't go to Stanford completely invalidate her as a potential candidate when it comes to modern leetcode interviewing.

> At least the single mom in Philly won't have the fact that she didn't go to Stanford completely invalidate her as a potential candidate

And when will the single mom in Philly find the time to memorize as many (or more, after all, its a competitive market) default-interview-questions, as someone born into wealth whith lots of free time on their hands and the financial resources to pay someone specializing in prepping them for exactly these interviews?

So, what did really change?

I don't see how this invalidates my original point, can you expand on your argument?

What's the prerequisite for getting good at these questions? Practice and Memorizing.

What resource is required to do that? Time.

What resource is in short supply to the Philly single mom?

Ok, so which comparatively-paying job is a better choice for her then?

Ha! OP said it’s a level playing field, I’m not arguing if it’s a better system than what you/him compare it to.

Just like how I would argue take-home/side/past projects are an amazing signal compared to credentials. I won’t dare to say it’s a level playing field.

I have been through it recently, you are right about the time investment. Though the resources are massively available and they are good quality (to my surprise). Of course you need the motivation, but which kind of interviews does not mandate any motivation? Simply put the non-selective one where companies just need to fill a position with whoever can do the job. People's conditions to prepare will massively differ from one to another, but we can't blame Tech for that. With Tech you will know one thing: you will be assessed based on your interview performance. As always in such debates, we are creating straw-man like "the mother in Philly". How many of such moms were in high-paying jobs before? Are there more or less in tech than other areas? Has the situation improved or not? To the best of my knowledge, I can just say that standardised interviews try to address one aspect of it. It is up to society to do the rest.

> Who is more likely to enjoy abstract puzzles/quizzes?

Assuming someone doesn't, is programming a good fit? (genuinely asking)

>People's conditions to prepare will massively differ from one to another, but we can't blame Tech for that.

Sure we can, and the assumption you give reveals the problem.

>you will be assessed based on your interview performance.

There's an implicit assumption here that as long as you prepare well, somehow you will get the job in tech. As if all you need to do is study up on algorithms, show your best self and it will be okay. At the end of it, you will get a great job which takes away your worries.

Perhaps that is the case in the FAANG/SF bubble, but that is not what is happening to a large section of the junior dev market outside tech bubbles. Requirements are rising and becoming increasingly more specific. Rewards are not keeping up. But to me, the absolute worst part is the ability to ace every measurable metric, to then be ditched for "not fitting the culture" or something related. The problem here is the utter lack of feedback which helps individuals stir themselves in the right direction. The current situation is more akin to walking through your local grocery store at winter to enter the lottery: not the worst situation, but definitely an off-putting situation.

The above is further exasperated by the way most companies filter individuals on personality traits which have no empirical evidence as to impacting the environment or their job performance. Additionally, many companies will not give you feedback on your technical assessment either, which is the bare minimum they could do.

If the tech interview alone was the problem, this discussion wouldn't be as hot as it is. The tech interview itself is just the tip of the iceberg.

> Assuming someone doesn't, is programming a good fit? (genuinely asking)

Same question, only replace "programming" with literally any other engineering discipline:

Assuming someone doesn't, is marine engineering a good fit? (genuinely asking)

Do we expect someone who designs, plans, builds, tests and maintains seafaring vessels and their components to be great at abstract puzzles and quizzes?

Or do we expect them to know a lot about steel alloys and how they interact with seawater, about the effect waves have on different hull-shapes, and how to figure out how to best install a 7m drive-shaft in an engine room (or whatever)?

At a surface level programming is about coding which is like solving puzzles. But in actual application it is critical to apply a sense of judgement regarding subtleties. Which bugs are actually most important to address? When is a change enough of a fix and what more might be done to make a change the right one, possibly by making other related changes. Reducing the complex balancing act of producing usable and robust software to coding puzzles ignores the most important levels of valuable contribution.

I’m not arguing that this system is not better than what you/OP compare it to. I’m only responding to “level playing field”. The Philly mom is just an example to show how obviously absurd that statement is.