The issue I have with these arguments is that they assume that just because a certain thing has flaws there must be a better solution. What if predicting long-term effectiveness using a limited amount of time is inherently approximate at best?
I'm sure interviewing can be improved, but I think it's worth remembering that we are one of the few industries that actually tries to do skills-based interviewing. When people say "get rid of leetcode" or what not, are they really saying that the alternative that the rest of the world uses (resume screen plus vibes check) is preferable?
I'm sure interviewing can be improved, but I think it's worth remembering that we are one of the few industries that actually tries to do skills-based interviewing. When people say "get rid of leetcode" or what not, are they really saying that the alternative that the rest of the world uses (resume screen plus vibes check) is preferable?