I completely agree with his, as someone who has recently completed several interviews for senior level. I used to think everything depended on Leetcode questions, but I was surprised to find out how much of the focus was on design, past experience and leadership.
Leetcode is "easy" to crack with some (considerable) amount of hard work and they know that. But you can't make up past experience in behavioral interviews as you get found out very quickly.
Me too. I interviewed at a few places in March for senior roles and there wasn't any algo gotchas. Some coding, I think mostly to make sure I could code. But a lot more emphasis on architecture and team skills.
So maybe there's the gap between senior roles and mid/jr/new.
But my question then is, how are senior folks training/picking folks to replace them? It must not be happening in the interviews, maybe on the job?
I've noticed the more experienced I get the less technical the questions are. My last interview was just a general chat about type systems, the good and bad of Haskell, why I have been using common lisp recently in my spare time, etc... No coding questions, no leetcode, no code walkthroughs -- I really enjoyed it.
Yes, but in my experience you need both. If you are not willing to put in some time at leetcode it might not go well. Of course you can still get lucky, but better to be prepared.
Oh, you definitely need both. But there is a misconception that Leetcode skills alone is enough, but for more senior roles you get judged on more than that.
Leetcode is "easy" to crack with some (considerable) amount of hard work and they know that. But you can't make up past experience in behavioral interviews as you get found out very quickly.