Ask HN: Are LeetCode interviews appropriate for senior/staff scientists?

3 points by ipunchghosts ↗ HN
I'm a staff computer vision researcher and ML/AI scientist with 20+ years of experience in XXX research & development. I've developed real-time CUDA/C++ systems for YYY that achieved 100x speed increases, architected large-scale ML infrastructure, and led teams in developing production computer vision systems. My work has been published with 350+ citations.

Recently, I've been interviewing and consistently encounter LeetCode-style technical assessments. While I understand the need to evaluate technical skills, I find this approach problematic for several reasons:

1. These exercises rarely reflect the actual work. In my experience, real engineering challenges involve system architecture, ML pipeline design, and performance optimization – not inverting binary trees.

2. In my leadership roles across research labs and industry, I've observed that engineers who excel at LeetCode-style problems don't necessarily perform well when faced with complex, real-world challenges that require thinking about system-level implications.

3. These interviews leave little room to discuss what I believe are more relevant topics: ML architecture decisions, HPC optimization strategies, deployment considerations, and how my experience building production systems aligns with the company's technical challenges.

4. I find these exercises painfully boring compared to my day job, where I work on fascinating problems in computer vision, deep learning, and high-performance computing. Spending hours on contrived puzzles feels pointless when I could be demonstrating my ability to solve real engineering challenges through system design discussions or code reviews of actual production systems.

I'm curious about the HN community's thoughts: - For those in hiring positions: How do you evaluate senior/staff level candidates with extensive research and development experience? - For other experienced engineers: How do you handle these situations? Have you found companies that take different approaches? - Has anyone successfully implemented alternative evaluation methods that better assess real-world engineering capabilities?

My goal isn't to dismiss algorithmic knowledge – I've spent years optimizing complex systems and developing novel algorithms. Rather, I question whether LeetCode exercises are the most effective way to evaluate experienced engineers who have demonstrated their abilities through years of shipped code, peer-reviewed research, and complex production systems.

16 comments

[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 54.8 ms ] thread
Absolutely not.

I also have 20+ years of experience in software development.

My skills and experience are not available to any companies using Leetcode style interviews.

Can you elaborate? I like your confidence :) Do you do any coding style interviews? (i had a nice one at my current position which essentially was going through python code to find bugs).
(comment deleted)
I am fine with 'find the bugs' - in fact these should replace Leetcode foolishness.
I suggest smaller companies, some startups and networking.

I screen companies early and reject those that admit to using these nonsense coding exercises.

Define small. I just interviewed at Dandy (the dental group) and they had me go through this process.

Also, do you do any type of coding exercises? where do you draw the line?

If they want one Easy level Leetcode, I am OK with that. Two Medium/Hards in 45 minutes is ludicrous and unacceptable.

FAANG is the worst and too many companies are lazy and copy them.

If you can get a strong reference from someone at a startup/smaller company, the coding exercises will be negotiable.

It seems more like a sign of the current hiring climate. There have been a lot of layoffs and contractions in tech, and so companies are getting flooded with applicants (many of whom may not be accurately representing their skills).

My assumption is that these tests are lower effort ways to effectively weed out a large portion of applicants.

Yes, these exercises have been standard since long before Covid but now the expectations are much higher.
I just got asked to do the problem where you calculate permutations of coins to total X cents problem. I spent 2 minutes with Claude passing their test suite. I had 58 minutes left in the test so I redid the solution with dynamic programming, converted to TypeScript, added JSDoc annotations, runtime profiling, caching, even some Easter Eggs. They loved it.

I don’t know what the point of these quizzes are now. Actually I never knew what the point was. At least they are amusing now.

Great point - AI makes Leetcode obsolete.
I partially agree with this. Using AI has sped up my work by about 30% so far but only in cases where i need boiler plate to get going and i have written the correct algorithmic solution many times before and can quickly check it.

I think it might be better to have them find bugs in code as opposed to write it from scratch. Interesting idea!

I would ace the pieces of code but couldn't architect if my life depended on it.
What was your method to ace the code? Was it fresh from undergrad / grad school?
Fumbling around, having fun, making nothing serious for 40ish years. There is a comical wall I was unable to see until someone on this website pointed it out. Anything small enough I can improve until it is a shiny gem. If the project is slightly larger I end up creating puzzle pieces that look like they belong to entirely different puzzles. Until it was pointed out I failed to realize they are entirely different skills with much less in common than it seems.

If you are looking for a conductor for the orchestra you could give him a banjo but the result will say more about you than about them.

I view reliance on Leetcode-style exercises as an attempt at putting a hard number on a notoriously subjective process, whether because a company is cargo-culting big tech, HR wants to eliminate subjectivity as a defense against lawsuits, or because interviewers can't agree how to run things and it ends up being the least-hated solution.

My team's interview process has a couple algorithm questions but they're fairly basic (to ensure you can still code), the main portion is about API design and system architecture. It's not very objective, but I like it since it is directly relevant to our work developing middleware systems and navigating competing interests in the process.