I'm guessing you're being downvoted because your response hasn't offered anything terribly constructive to the conversation, but I have to actually commend your attitude as I have reached a similar mentality. I am Leetcoding, still suck at it but persisting. I'll play the game because I'm not sure what other choice I have. I don't enjoy my current job and in order to get the jobs I want with the people I want to work with this is the price. That being said, it's absurd we have to do this EVERY DAMN TIME. Even moving between FAANG requires you to do this. That in and of itself is a clear indication of how bad of a signal this interview process is. Reviewing reddit and team blind and HN, it seems many folks working at a big tech company still need to leetcode to move to another big tech company despite already passing the bar at one! If that isn't a clear indication of the type of information these interviews provide I don't know what other evidence we need.
Considering how standard it is, we might as well just make it a part of a software developer certification/license that you have to do once to break into the industry.
Then maybe companies can actually focus on hiring for the job?
Even then, I've started to ask what "hiring for the job" means. General aptitude in our field should be a good indicator of ability to learn and pick up skills in different specialties.
The funny thing is, despite our best efforts to not become a real standard profession we are behaving a lot like one, except we don't realize it and keep making candidates jump through the same hoops repeatedly.
Getting many software jobs is still about network and recommendations.
Getting many software jobs is about a standardized base level skillset and knowledge (i.e. leetcoding).
Getting many software jobs is about specializing in a domain and skillset (for e.g. ML or finance or cyber security and all their respective languages and frameworks).
And as many commentors have mentioned we aren't as meritocratic as we would like to believe. We still bring our biases to the hiring process. We still hire people we like for subjective reasons over others.
My point is this. Maybe, just maybe, it's time we as an industry standardized the profession officially and codified what it takes to get certain positions. That's what I can offer to this conversation constructively.
Yes, knowing algorithms and data structures IS imporant to being a good software developer, even if you are building CRUD or mobile apps. But, how many times to do I need to prove I know them? Yes, showing leadership skills IS important to being a good software developer. But isn't being a leader mostly about conflict management, moral obligation and being ethical?
Maybe we can stop fearing becoming a real profession that is beholden to standards and public scrutiny and embrace it. It will end up being better for everyone. Then we can revisit the criteria regularly to make sure the tests we need to pass represent what it means to be do our jobs and do them well.
> Considering how standard it is, we might as well just make it a part of a software developer certification/license that you have to do once to break into the industry.
I think it is only a matter of time for this to happen. All it would really take would be two major companies deciding to standardize on some set of criteria, and smaller companies would follow suit for the sake of simplicity (and because no one really feels like they know what they're doing anyway).
Considering how standard it is, we might as well just make it a part of a software developer certification/license that you have to do once to break into the industry.
Then maybe companies can actually focus on hiring for the job?
Even then, I've started to ask what "hiring for the job" means. General aptitude in our field should be a good indicator of ability to learn and pick up skills in different specialties.
The funny thing is, despite our best efforts to not become a real standard profession we are behaving a lot like one, except we don't realize it and keep making candidates jump through the same hoops repeatedly.
Getting many software jobs is still about network and recommendations.
Getting many software jobs is about a standardized base level skillset and knowledge (i.e. leetcoding).
Getting many software jobs is about specializing in a domain and skillset (for e.g. ML or finance or cyber security and all their respective languages and frameworks).
And as many commentors have mentioned we aren't as meritocratic as we would like to believe. We still bring our biases to the hiring process. We still hire people we like for subjective reasons over others.
My point is this. Maybe, just maybe, it's time we as an industry standardized the profession officially and codified what it takes to get certain positions. That's what I can offer to this conversation constructively.
Yes, knowing algorithms and data structures IS imporant to being a good software developer, even if you are building CRUD or mobile apps. But, how many times to do I need to prove I know them? Yes, showing leadership skills IS important to being a good software developer. But isn't being a leader mostly about conflict management, moral obligation and being ethical?
Maybe we can stop fearing becoming a real profession that is beholden to standards and public scrutiny and embrace it. It will end up being better for everyone. Then we can revisit the criteria regularly to make sure the tests we need to pass represent what it means to be do our jobs and do them well.