I suppose that you will reply "talk to them" or "look at their experience"

> But, we have learned through squillions of posts here on HN, it just isn't enough. Idk, I can usually tell when someone is an actual engineer vs armchair expert. Actually building stuff requires you to think differently. It's like how someone that just does CAD often fights with machinists because they don't understand the physical limitations. > There are many charlatans that will slip through that type of interview process Of course. But that also happens with leetcode style interviews. You can memorize problems and that doesn't reflect your actual job performance. There's a saying "studying to the test" The real question is the "optimization" question. Considering the time and cost of the interview process, along with the difficulty to remove bad employees, how effective is the interview process. You are optimizing for the best candidate but it's a constrained optimization problem.…

If IQ were a universally appliable measure sure, but knowing how to tackle a specific kind of problem (Specially one not commonly used, and that you have to specifically train for) isn't the ideal measure either LeetCode specifically is famously dissimilar to day to day programming, and therefore (probably) a bad measure for Quality It's like saying that having a degree is better because it proves that you can follow trough It's not necessarily wrong, but it's a tertiary situation that doesn't neccesarily correlate (Even if it might, mostly)