> They're looking for people who will devote their life to the company and can quickly learn new skills
This doesn't reflect my lived experience in SV. People I know who learned leetcode skills and got into big companies usually work less than people who passed more practical tests and get into smaller companies.
I'd say big companies are trying to hire employees who are a "good" mix of:
1. Smart
2. Conscientious / willing to work hard on the right things
3. Existing CS knowledge you know well enough to explain and apply.
For some vague handwavy definition of "good"
(2) is probably worth expanding a bit. Many people are willing to work very hard on the wrong thing, this extends to engineering. As an example, a common failure pattern you might see is someone constantly struggling with how React works and what they really need to do is sit down and read the ~15 pages of documentation. But they never do, and just keep putting in 10 hour days with subpar output.
I've met some legit geniuses (think Putnam winner) for whom basically no studying was required to pass these interviews. Companies paying top dollar are happy to have them. For people like who are less smart and need to dedicate ~100-200 hours of focused studying and practice, companies paying top dollar are happy to take our mix of smarts and willingness to do that work. But once in the company I haven't noticed any expectation to "devote my life" to it.
Right, I think you've explained it better than me. I was just going for the idea that the point of leetcode isn't to figure out if someone is currently a great engineer, but if they have what it takes to become one. Everyone complaining that leetcode isn't related to their day to day job is missing the point.
This doesn't reflect my lived experience in SV. People I know who learned leetcode skills and got into big companies usually work less than people who passed more practical tests and get into smaller companies.
I'd say big companies are trying to hire employees who are a "good" mix of:
1. Smart
2. Conscientious / willing to work hard on the right things
3. Existing CS knowledge you know well enough to explain and apply.
For some vague handwavy definition of "good"
(2) is probably worth expanding a bit. Many people are willing to work very hard on the wrong thing, this extends to engineering. As an example, a common failure pattern you might see is someone constantly struggling with how React works and what they really need to do is sit down and read the ~15 pages of documentation. But they never do, and just keep putting in 10 hour days with subpar output.
I've met some legit geniuses (think Putnam winner) for whom basically no studying was required to pass these interviews. Companies paying top dollar are happy to have them. For people like who are less smart and need to dedicate ~100-200 hours of focused studying and practice, companies paying top dollar are happy to take our mix of smarts and willingness to do that work. But once in the company I haven't noticed any expectation to "devote my life" to it.