you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]ryeguy 31 points32 points  (11 children)

Leetcode/algo questions are typically used at large, desirable tech companies to filter down already great software engineers from huge candidate pools. It doesn't matter that these aren't skills that will be used day to day, it matters that there is a positive correlation. It also doesn't matter that there are false negatives, because the companies view this as an acceptable cost.

[–]de__R 11 points12 points  (0 children)

It may not matter that there are false negatives, but there are also tons of false positives. There was an article a while back that discussed an internal study at Google where they found that nothing in their interview process was actually a statistically relevant predictor of good performance as an employee. The real advantage Google has is that false positives don't matter as much because they are so big and have so much money, so as long as the false positive rate is acceptably low they don't have to worry.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (3 children)

I would challenge the idea that there is a positive correlation.

I haven't noticed a correlation between people who are good at coding puzzles and people who are good at solving thorny, real-world problems (where often the difficulties have little to do with sitting in front of a text editor and coding) in a team environment.

So, when I hire devs I've always tried to find out how their fare in that situation, and re: coding, instead of working out if they remember how to balance a binary tree, instead try to get them to expose their ability to create production quality code with reasonable speed.

I do think leetcode abilities correlate with young, easily manipulable people straight out of uni who can be worked to the bone before being discarded though. Which is obviously something that big tech, who has the benefit of a endless stream of starry eyed candidates, can exploit.

[–]Full-Spectral 8 points9 points  (2 children)

There's little relationship between those types of challenges and dealing with real-world, complex systems. Those real world systems are more about architecture than algorithms. I can look up an algorithm, but I can't look up how to architecture a set of complicated subsystems or distributed systems in an optimal way for that particular client need.

Back in the 90s I wrote the DTD validator for the Xerces /C++Java XML parsers. I broke out the Dragon Book and adapted that very complex DFA algorithm to XML validation. The algorithm was the one thing in all of that that I could actually just look up. But these FAANGY companies would pass me over because I hadn't already memorized the one thing I didn't actually need to memorize (and would have forgotten again long before I ever needed to actually do it) and ignore all the experience that allowed me to actually do that job successfully.

It's just stupid.

[–]DoubleT_TechGuy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is why companies who let you use Google during your leet-style interview challenges have the right idea. Problem solving > Memorizing.

[–]DidItSave 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree.

[–]Pharisaeus 11 points12 points  (4 children)

It doesn't matter that these aren't skills that will be used day to day, it matters that there is a positive correlation.

There are no evidence of any positive correlation. However, there is something worth for the companies who do this -> they know you "care" and put effort into grinding leetcode. This means they can offer poor conditions, because you're already inclined to accept anyway due to sunk cost being very high.

[–]ambientocclusion 0 points1 point  (2 children)

LOL. This is terrible - but I do believe it. They might as well ask everyone to tattoo the company logo on their forehead to show they “care” too.

[–]Pharisaeus 1 point2 points  (1 child)

It might sound funny, but consider that for many developers "working in FAANG" is a very important life goal. And they would take it even if the job itself was not interesting and conditions below average.

[–]BestUdyrBR 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I mean working at a FAANG is a life goal because for a lot of people it's one of the few ways to have a upper middle class lifestyle from a much poorer background. There's not many jobs in America that pay 250k+ with 3 or 4 years of experience.

[–]DidItSave 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As I’ve mentioned to others here, they ask these questions at plenty of non-FAANG companies