I've noticed that for almost any role involving coding, especially in software development, interviews demand proficiency in solving medium-level Leetcode problems. As someone with a non-CS background, I find these questions extremely challenging, and it's taking me a long time to grasp the basics of data structures and algorithms (DSA). I never aimed to be a programmer; my goal was always to use programming for smaller tasks or hardware development, like working with Arduino and Raspberry Pi. Yet, during interviews, I'm often pushed to perform well on these coding challenges despite my background not aligning with that expectation. Additionally, there's still a high expectation for knowledge in systems design, which adds to my frustration because it feels irrelevant to the roles I'm applying for. Why has this approach become a standard for software interviews?
3 Answers
In hiring, it's crucial to ensure that candidates can actually code, especially given the high number of applicants for programming jobs. Many resumes can be misleading, and traditional qualifications like certifications can be less trustworthy. That's why programming puzzles have become commonplace; they provide a measurable way to verify candidates' skills. It seems Microsoft popularized this approach, which stuck around as a straightforward means to screen applicants. However, this often excludes candidates who might excel in practical coding but struggle with these puzzles. I personally prefer asking candidates to share code they've written and proud of—that fosters a better conversation.
Exactly, it would be nice if interviews focused more on real-world coding. Puzzles don't always reflect one's ability to do the job!
The reliance on platforms like Leetcode may stem from employers wanting a standardized way to assess candidates. They assume that if you can tackle these problems, you have a baseline coding ability. However, many argue that it's not a good fit for all roles—especially those oriented towards hardware development, where practical coding skills are more relevant than algorithmic prowess. It's not uncommon for companies to overly emphasize these tests, despite the nature of the job being quite different.
It's frustrating that there's such a disconnect between what hires need and what's being tested. Companies should focus on skills that truly apply to the role.
Exactly, those DSA and system design interviews may have no relevance to hardware roles. It feels so out of touch!
I think the heavy focus on coding puzzles is often a reflection of hiring practices trying to filter through a massive pool of applicants. Unfortunately, doing well on these tests doesn’t necessarily mean someone will be great at the job itself. Plus, these puzzles often leave out real-world application, which is vital. It's a frustrating system, especially for those of us without traditional CS backgrounds who still have valuable skills to bring to the table.
It's definitely a flawed system. Real tests should align more with the work we do instead of arbitrary puzzles.
Totally agree—the disconnect between a test on Leetcode and actual coding tasks can be disheartening.
I completely agree! Sharing a piece of code allows for an engaging discussion about what you've done and your thought process, rather than just checking boxes on a test.