Ask HN: Are LeetCode interviews appropriate for senior/staff scientists?
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 ] threadI also have 20+ years of experience in software development.
My skills and experience are not available to any companies using Leetcode style interviews.
I screen companies early and reject those that admit to using these nonsense coding exercises.
Also, do you do any type of coding exercises? where do you draw the line?
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.
My assumption is that these tests are lower effort ways to effectively weed out a large portion of applicants.
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.
I think it might be better to have them find bugs in code as opposed to write it from scratch. Interesting idea!
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.
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.