Why Are Programmers Growingly Rejecting Coding Questions in Interviews?

Answer 1

A CFD developer failed an interview because the interviewer required implementation of a binary‑tree sort, even though his daily work never involves writing sorting algorithms—he simply calls library interfaces. He can implement domain‑specific algorithms such as SIMPLE, PISO, BiCGSTAB, GMRES, polynomial preconditioners, and Delaunay triangulation, but was forced to answer generic data‑structure questions.

Answer 2

Interview coding is seen as irrelevant to production work. In production environments the primary metrics are stability and timely delivery. Optimizing a small piece of code or writing a custom sort may introduce bugs, while standard library sort() implementations are usually faster and more reliable.

Answer 3

Interview requirements often demand solving a difficult algorithmic problem within 45 minutes, producing bug‑free, clean code. Candidates typically memorize entire question banks, first present a sub‑optimal solution, then reveal a better one when they recognize the original problem. The process is viewed as a superficial filter that benefits companies by selecting candidates who can invest time in preparation rather than measuring real‑world competence.

Answer 4

Small companies sometimes ask “stupid” or overly contrived questions that are unrelated to actual work.

Large companies may pose generic questions (e.g., differences between String and StringBuffer) that feel disconnected from the role.

Occasionally, interview tasks align with real project challenges and are welcomed by candidates.

Many interviewers and candidates perceive the overall process as a waste of time when the questions do not reflect job responsibilities.

Answer 5

An interview‑er from a major tech firm reports that, after conducting hundreds of interviews, written coding tests are rarely used because they assess candidates in a one‑dimensional way. The preferred approach is to evaluate learning ability and problem‑solving skills, allowing candidates to use resources such as Google. The author observes that test‑crackers often succeed in written exams, while genuinely capable engineers frequently fail. Moreover, many companies recycle the same online test questions, which advantages candidates who have brushed up on those specific problems.