I think it makes sense to use LC or something like it. Is there a better way to judge the 100 random developers who've applied to your position?
- They may not have formal education, you can't judge on that.
- They may not have active GitHub projects, you can't judge on that.
- They may not be active on social media or have any kind of fame, you can't judge on that.
- They may not have built anything they can show off like this `Find` app, you can't judge on that.
So what can you judge them on? LC makes that pretty simple: "can they answer some standardised questions about algorithms and data structures, showing that they have at least some basic knowledge of what's going on in computers?"
It's not without downsides, but I also struggle to see a better option that can scale to the armies of devs that Amazon, Google, etc, all hire.
- They may not have formal education, you can't judge on that.
- They may not have active GitHub projects, you can't judge on that.
- They may not be active on social media or have any kind of fame, you can't judge on that.
- They may not have built anything they can show off like this `Find` app, you can't judge on that.
So what can you judge them on? LC makes that pretty simple: "can they answer some standardised questions about algorithms and data structures, showing that they have at least some basic knowledge of what's going on in computers?"
It's not without downsides, but I also struggle to see a better option that can scale to the armies of devs that Amazon, Google, etc, all hire.