[jwmoz]

'Principal' developer at my last place spent 100 consecutive days grinding leetcode. Shortly after had an interview where they made him do a leetcode test live and he failed it.

The whole thing is broken.

[Spivak]

It's a whole separate skill to be able to code with an audience, let alone an audience who is judging you. I could forgive a non-technical interviewer not knowing this but surely someone who is a dev themselves understands the very real performance anxiety. It's bonkers why we do this to people— the best I've seen is the in person talks about their experience, architecture, problems they've encountered and how they solved them and then either code samples from their public code if they have some or a short take-home assignment if they don't.

They could cheat on the take-home but it isn't meant to be difficult and you hopefully figured out at the in-person that they're someone who wouldn't need to bother cheating.

[w0mbat]

I can't code with somebody looking over my shoulder. I need to relax and think about the task. They expect me to code while being judged by one or more strangers, against the clock, with high stakes involved. If that was the actual job I would not apply for it.

[daseiner1]

A good analogy I’ve been told is the NFL combine. Vertical jump, straight-line speed, and bench press performances are probably moderately correlated with on-field performance, but the best test of playing the game is playing the game.

I more understand the emphasis on leetcode problems for juniors but a timed session without an observer (perhaps with browser tracking) to solve those problems makes a lot more sense than bringing in the anxiety of the observer, as you’ve noted. It sucks having to spend mental energy wondering how your problem-solving looks to whoever’s watching and seems actively detrimental to assessing talent for an IC role.

[jwmoz]

It's almost impossible for me to do any serious work or problem solving in an interview situation due to anxiety and stress-my mind simple does not work the same way as it does when relaxed and in flow.

[HeyLaughingBoy]

Principal Engineer level shouldn't even be tested on leetcode. There are far more important things to know about that candidate.

[colordrops]

I interviewed at Amazon for a principle engineering position - got the interview as my resume has some pretty high profile accomplishments. But they just asked me leetcode questiins all day. I don't practice leetcoding so needless to say I didn't do well. Everyone there looked tired and worn out, probably dodged a bullet.

[Uehreka]

I don’t get why people act like terms like “Principal Engineer” have an agreed-upon specific meaning that can be used in cross-company discussions. At most places I’ve worked the titles were a duct taped hierarchy born of “we needed to give so-and-so another raise but had run out of non-manager titles, so here’s Senior Software Engineer II”

[serial_dev]

Some basic level of leetcoding should be fine to verify that the candidate can at least code and is not only a bullshit artist who jumps from one position to the next, failing upwards.

I had some interviews, not at the principal level, we had a couple of candidates who were very good during the informal interviews, they could hold a conversation about technology, but they couldn’t code the simplest of problems. I know folks don’t like it, but this could happen in my humble opinion at all levels.

[stevenalowe]

if only he had spent 101 days...

[barbazoo]

Or the interview was about more than just leetcode and they just weren’t that good.