I will happily do them so that I don't have to compete on wages with people who just got a degree in college and feel like the salary is now owed to them.
I enjoy LC, I'm good at it, and I find most of the people complaining about it to be the same sort of people as parents who would complain about how their kid "was very smart, but just not a good test-taker" if only those elite colleges would just take notice.
I really don't think you can neglect the large number of people who think they are very bright and effective and would be great for this role, but actually aren't.
Based on my experience, this is a solid proportion of nerdy men (I say as one of them). When I was studying physics, all sorts of people would want to talk about their interest in physics and quantum mechanics with me but they "were only good with the concepts, not the math." Any brief conversation would reveal they didn't have the damnedest idea what was going on.
My suspicion is that these are the people driving the anti-leetcode discourse.
Top unis absolutely pass on bright students all the time, you are right.
i like leetcode and I'm good at it, but after a certain point grinding leetcode doesn't make you a better software "engineer", it just makes you better taking tests. Now i believe tests have a purpose in the interview process and i'm not opposed to having some leetcode in interviews. I've noticed the pattern of making leetcode type problems harder and harder because people keep grinding and grinding. There are some problem where the solutions are so absurdly clever that unless you are either a genius or you've studied the solution before, you would never be able to get close to it on interviews, and i'm leaning towards most people aren't geniuses.
I enjoy LC, I'm good at it, and I find most of the people complaining about it to be the same sort of people as parents who would complain about how their kid "was very smart, but just not a good test-taker" if only those elite colleges would just take notice.