5 comments

[ 0.99 ms ] story [ 12.5 ms ] thread
I failed every LeetCode style interview I've ever attempted. I mean, I'm lucky to even be filtered for the interview nowadays.. However, I failed not because I couldn't solve the problems. I solved them (honestly, without any AI). I just rarely solved them the way the interviewer wanted.
Can you expand on that? What were the problems and how had you prepared?

I avoided any interview with LeetCode and unfortunately it kept me out of Big Tech. Or fortunately, I'm not sure.

Hey!

Yes I prepared, classical grind on leetcode, easy/medium (no hards), Neetcode 75, and etc

So, it's not like I ignored the preparation step, it's like that there's a specific "game" and "format" they're waiting for.. Because regardless of the fact that I'm choosing correct data structure or finally implementing solution (sometimes semi-optimal, but working), it doesn't count that I'm vocalizing the logic and explaining how I think. Looks like they're looking for perfect execution

But again it was just my experience, might not be representative

I don't mean to sound depressive, this whole step just frustrates me (I'm 10+ years in the industry, working on high load backend systems)

I recently got a disjoint set problem (similar to number of islands of Leetcode) in an interview and the interviewer made me solve it using a DFS approach instead of a union find. Also I realized that most interviewers prefer that I solve the Leetcode problems in TypeScript and don't like Python

Solving algorithm problems is different in interviews than on Leetcode

Modern Signal Processing 101: there are low-pass, high-pass, and leetcode filters.