Either it wasn't a true "zero" but rather they were really good e.g. at advanced math or physics and managed to see some parallels, or it has to be a genius. I'd be very interested in hiring such a person.
The code to solve basically all of them look nearly identical after you classify it and the questions asked (what's the big O of this) are also all identical.
It's an extremely narrow and teachable class of problems.
There's outliers for sure but the 80th percentile are basically just the same damn things slightly rephrased. It's extremely gameable and doesn't test the kind of breadth say, fixing a crashing program would show.
Here's a list of 16 https://github.com/Chanda-Abdul/Several-Coding-Patterns-for-... ... That's the 99th percentile.
If you think someone passing that means they can fix the conda bug in your k8s cluster or whatever real problem you have, dream on. It'd be like hiring a cook by quizzing them on the names of kitchen utensils.
The other way round (people who code, but can't leetcode) I agree it's an issue. Unfortunately as noted here in comments, cost of a bad hire is much much worse than cost of a no-hire, so it's the price I'm willing to pay.
Excellent! That’s a something, a something you can measure. Back when I was involved in hiring, it was definitely better than not having that (at junior levels).
However, the idea that “IQ is all you need” is so obviously false that I think you need to reconsider. Bill Gates famously, (infamously?), hired for IQ. Microsoft used puzzles as their IQ proxy, and I think leetcode is just a modern variant. Possibly a worse version, as training has a bigger effect.
Bill Gates later would claim that he overvalued intelligence. I would say that intelligence is necessary but insufficient. We would get further, faster, with a quick IQ test and then dig into the candidates experience, communication ability and personality. No need to study!
The FAANG companies all have a line a mile long of candidates willing to put up with any amount of BS for a chance to work for the name and $$. If you aren’t such a company, trying to hire that game changing person for $$’s you can afford to pay is going to require a different approach.
I think the mass trained at bootcamp is an exaggeration. The best bootcampers are those that use it as an extended education from learning the traditional ways. I'm sure most people here complaining about leetcode can indeed spend 6 weeks there and be interview ready. But few have that time nor spare cash lying around for such a venture. And why should we need to spend thousands just to ace a quiz like it's some SAT?
>cost of a bad hire is much much worse than cost of a no-hire, so it's the price I'm willing to pay.
At this point I wonder. Hearing way more stories about "survivors" from layoffs burning out from jobs that keep promising that they'll hire more staff to help out with. When in reality they have a hiring freeze or are trying to offshore the work that ends up needing more time to be fixed.
The stalls in a no-hire aren't just costing money in the lack of productivity, it's costing currently working employees who are doing 2,4, 8+ jobs without any meaningful increase in role/salary. It's not sustainable. You're draining a little bit of blood from a rock, but the rock is clearly starting to crumble.
If I genuinely wanted a job again all I'd do is go to one of those drilling game websites for a few nights and then say whatever the interviewer is looking for.
Any test I can fail one day and pass 3 days later that is ostensibly supposed to assess whether I have skills that take 15 years to master is total bullshit.
The initial stated problem was different: false-positives, bad engineers practicing for 6 weeks will pass the test. That I seriously doubt is a real thing. If they managed to learn that fast, they must be good. They could be junior-good -- that's perfectly fine, you need to hire juniors too. You don't judge seniority solely based on leetcode results.
I could be wrong, but I think dynamic-programming problems belong in that list.
Recently I failed the first round of a fintech analyst position because I didn't complete the 9 undergrad (or high-school, in certain talented schools) math problems (I have a math PhD) in the 1 hour time frame. In retrospect, I should've cheated using computer/online assistance, and my true failure was my unwillingness to cheat. Not because fintech analysts are cheaters, but because the testing process is nonsense, so recognizing that, one should cheat it (indeed, an analyst mindset!) I'd rather be jobless than to adopt that mentality though. (and in fact I am, the only job I was able to find was a minimum wage service-type job, it can't even pay for daycare, I'd rather raise my child on my own while wife works thank God.)
We have high-interest rates and global crises resulting in companies not hiring while simultaneously governments give orders to news media to tout the strong economy. Ineffective hiring practices will always exist, but people don't complain when jobs are available; you only see this type of discussion online when things have gone sideways.
Integrity is really tested when it costs you something. I'd call this a true win.
(I recognize there are dire situations where cheating might be warranted. I hope you're not there yet.)
And because they ask pretty irrelevant questions, the 6 weeker will do phenomenally, staggeringly, profoundly better then the recent Stanford PhD who has been studying a specific problem for 5 years or the recent minted multimillionaire who spent the past 10 years building and selling successful software companies.
Those people will fail and your 6 weeker who's never heard of cmake, diff or gdb will pass.
There's once again, an entire industry designed around how insufficient and hackable this stupid hiring practice is.
When I see there's leetcode as the hiring process I presume the place is full of bozos because the process actually strongly preferences them.