11–20 of 675 posts
they rather keep a set of leetcode, iq and personality test to remove you from the list of candidates
root cause is bootcamps over saturation of devs in job market, especially in web
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh you focused on the “polishing” and not the “there’s nothing to show” part People good at their jobs because they do their job: nothing on github People in the business of performance theatre because they dont have a job to be good at: plenty on github. It can be legit code they wrote, that was not the point at all.
I half agree with this. I don't like the idea that every developer has to have code on github. If they want to code for work and nothing more, then that's fine and shouldn't disqualify them from any jobs. We shouldn't expect people to spend years of employment building up a portfolio for the next time they're looking for a job. However, I don't see how looking at the code people write isn't informative. You can see m…
Github presence is just a non signal. Thats the only point.
We agree that if you have a different way to see how theyll actually structure code for you, then its useful
I have been on the receiving end of applying to an agency and being told I didn't make the grade technically. I was disappointed because I know I am a good engineer but I didn't expect them to magically know this. I can also see how my approach to the technical tests might have made me look less than what they were looking for, which is fine.
I am also not sure of any good alternatives because someone will always object to any alternative which they cannot achieve for some reason. A "take home" project is good for real life work but some people cannot (or will not) invest the time even if they are paid for it; discussions can be great for helping nervous people but that is not how work usually is, there are challenges, pressures etc. and the able people object that it is not fair that people are getting in too easily.
I don't really understand the point almost all of the thing they list as downsides of using Leet Code are actually benefits. If someone can't manage to code some simple questions during an interview I can't imagine they'd ever make real contributions.
I’ve seen so many people over the years do terrible on these types of test that went on to be amazing contributors. We only found this out because we essentially ignored the outcome of these tests, which makes you wonder why you’re doing these tests at all!
I don't really understand the point almost all of the thing they list as downsides of using Leet Code are actually benefits. If someone can't manage to code some simple questions during an interview I can't imagine they'd ever make real contributions.
These articles always seem to have an underlying assumption that really great people are being denied access to jobs because they can't get through these interviews but it is implying that the people who do get through these are not also great but are less hassle, easier to measure their ability and so what if they have swatted up on LeetCode to help their application? That means they are driven, that they have learn…
I don't really understand the point almost all of the thing they list as downsides of using Leet Code are actually benefits. If someone can't manage to code some simple questions during an interview I can't imagine they'd ever make real contributions.
if the "simple questions" are realistic problems they might face day to day, fair enough. But the classic example in these articles is an exercise like invert a binary tree, which most people never have nor will need to do, making it a poor test.