The problem is that it might have been true at some point but now there are resources to “learn” for interviews, so currently you will get people willing to grind.
Nobody happy with their pay and job is going to grind leetcode.
They could just ignore leetcode and ask puzzle problems instead to test ability.
> They could just ignore leetcode and ask puzzle problems instead to test ability.
One of the hiring fads before leetcode was to ask puzzle questions, with a heavy emphasis on Fermi questions and trick questions. These had the same failure modes.
It turns out that hiring is hard, involves some risk, and always tends to illustrate Goodhart's Law: whatever process you put in place to avoid that risk will ultimately become worthless when people start optimizing for it.
> Nobody happy with their pay and job is going to grind leetcode.
I'm not going to grind leetcode regardless of how happy I am with my pay and job. I have very strong objections it. If a company requires it, I take that as a pretty strong signal that I won't get along well at that company.
The people who are good at algorithms are grinders. There is a tiny percentage of geniuses who don't need to grind algorithms. The rest of the people who were good at algos before leetcode became widespread were also grinders
In fact this is how you become "smart" - some talent and a lot of hard work (grind)
> In fact this is how you become "smart" - some talent and a lot of hard work (grind)
Hmm. I think this is a different definition of "smart" than I'm used to. I would say that some talent and a lot of hard work gets you "skilled", not necessarily "smart".
There are many different types of intelligences or smarts
Skill is a form of "functional intelligence", where skill = talent + grind. The more talent, the less you need to grind, but combined the two are killer. To me, "smart" where the grind is 0 is not "smart", but just "lucky" (born with talent)
Honestly, being "willing to grind" might be a good thing to target if it's a good proxy for being willing to do the work.
However, I agree with the general sentiment that almost nobody is doing the research to ensure their interview process selects for the things they actually want.
These companies don't want an employee who starts to question "why" things should be done or why things are important. Demonstrating that you are willing to apply yourself at something objectively useless simply because you are required to is a huge plus.
1. Learning algorithms and practicing leetcode is not actually useless. A deep knowledge of algorithms falls under the category of high value knowledge that is not frequently needed. Its still high value when its needed and you cant predict when it is needed.
2. Its not a hamster wheel because you get a high paying job for your efforts
My sentiment too. These Leetcode style websites will take an algorithm and then come up with a contorted problem that can be solved with that problem. Often the problem is not even worded precisely but people who have been wasting time on solving random problems can see the patterns apparently.
Nobody happy with their pay and job is going to grind leetcode.
They could just ignore leetcode and ask puzzle problems instead to test ability.