[jonkho]

That’s not true. In any discipline when confronted with a test there are two strategies: brute memorization of the question/answers, or developing the skills to tackle the problem dynamically. You cannot categorically claim that LC tests are largely memorization tests rather than raw problem-solving skills. That is just the approach you are capable of taking. Not being able to see up the mountain doesn’t imply there are no climbers above you.

[KaiserPro]

> You cannot categorically claim that LC tests are largely memorization tests rather than raw problem-solving skills

If that were the case then a normal, well accomplished software engineer shouldn't need to "grind" leetcode to pass an interview.

its just a cargo cult. Getting someone to do a code review is a much much better test of skill:

Do they ask questions?

are they kind in their assertions?

At what point do they go "I don't know"?

Do they concentrate on style or substance?

do they raise an issue with a lack of comments?

do they ask why the description of the PR is so vague?

When they get a push back, are they aggressive?

All of those are much better tests than "rewrite a thing that a library would do for you already"

[hackinthebochs]

>If that were the case then a normal, well accomplished software engineer shouldn't need to "grind" leetcode to pass an interview.

No, what this shows is that the skill range for accomplished professional software devs is absolutely massive. What these companies want is to find the tail end of this very wide distribution. Leetcode interviews do a decent job at this. If you have been coding for a decade and can't do leetcode mediums with almost no prep, and hards with a moderate refresher on data structures, then you're simply not the in the right tail of the skill distribution and they don't want you. This is what so many in our industry can't accept: you're just not talented enough to earn a FAANG job.

[emodendroket]

Designing a test for which one cannot possibly prepare is a problem that’s bedeviled test makers for a long time. The team behind the SAT threw up their hands and said it no longer stood for “scholastic aptitude test” but just… nothing.

[Tade0]

That's exactly true.

LC tests typically copy problems from the university the interviewer graduated from. College programs differ, so this is really a case of what you were introduced to.

There's a fairly popular online LC test company in my corner of the world which was formed by graduates and lecturers from a certain university and they started out by just giving the problems from the curriculum. Result was heavy bias in favour of students and alumni of that university.

[johnnyanmac]

> You cannot categorically claim that LC tests are largely memorization tests rather than raw problem-solving skills.

Sure I can. By the time you get to Leetcode hard, these aren't just "can you derive the answer". The questions by design take 45+ minutes and have some weird quirk in it that is nominally related to the core concept being tested. These aren't necessarily meant to be done on the fly during an interview period.

>Not being able to see up the mountain doesn’t imply there are no climbers above you.

a better analogy is that youre on a road and you see a freeway above you. The people above you aren't "better", they are simply on another road, to another destination. But they aren't necessarily worse either. They could be on their way to a dead end job or could be a billionaire CEO.

That is to say, it's useless comparing yourself to other people you don't know. Everyone has their story.

[jonkho]

Thank you. You just proved my point that “categorically LC is not largely memorization” by reinforcing that only in specific cases in some specific levels that you do need some specific domain knowledge.