All of these supposed "flaws" of leetcode are by design. Big companies want people who are smart enough to do the work, but obedient enough to put up with all the bullshit that comes with working at a big company. What person better matches that than someone who's able and willing to study for and pass a tech version of the SAT? Every anti-leetcode article I read is some version of "leetcode is bad because it measures the wrong things." No, we all know it measures those things, and those are exactly the things the measurers want to measure.
You might ask, so why do startups do leetcode too? I heard startups are supposed to be, uh, innovating, developing new technology, and working on hard, meaningful problems? Shouldn't they want brilliant, super effective people, instead of smart-enough, obedient workers? Apparently not. Apparently they want the same workers bigcos want. The implication of this is left as an exercise to the reader.
You might ask, so why do startups do leetcode too? I heard startups are supposed to be, uh, innovating, developing new technology, and working on hard, meaningful problems? Shouldn't they want brilliant, super effective people, instead of smart-enough, obedient workers? Apparently not. Apparently they want the same workers bigcos want. The implication of this is left as an exercise to the reader.