We’ve all been there: staring at an online code editor, heart hammering, trying to conjure a perfectly optimized algorithm while an interviewer(s) looks on expectantly. Coding interviews have become a standard practice for tech companies, but are they really the best way to assess a developer’s potential or their skills?

I’d argue they’re not even close. In fact, they might be doing more harm than good.

The Pressure Cooker Fallacy

Coding interviews are notorious for putting candidates under immense pressure. In these scenarios, developers are expected to solve complex problems with minimal preparation, and often without full context. You’re tasked with writing code under the watchful eyes of one or two interviewers, as they evaluate your every keystroke.

This is hardly reflective of real-world software development.

Modern development is collaborative, iterative, and often involves plenty of discussion, debugging, and — let’s be real — Googling. The environment in a coding interview is a far cry from the day-to-day experience, where developers work in teams, take the time to fully understand problems, and build solutions with care. Writing clean, maintainable code in the real world is a thoughtful, measured process — nothing like the high-stress race to solve an algorithm in 30 minutes.

I appreciate the interviewer(s) is seeking to understand a candidates thought process, but this approach is unnatural for most people.

Rote Learning vs. Real Skills

Many coding interview questions have become predictable, to the point where a quick search online will uncover a list of common problems and their optimal solutions. While it’s true that preparation is important for any interview, what we’re really testing here is how well candidates can memorize algorithms, rather than their ability to think critically or write maintainable code.

Yes, they might be able to churn out a sorting algorithm on the spot. But can they navigate a complex codebase, identify subtle bugs, and contribute to a system that needs to be maintained by a team over time? That’s the real test of a developer’s skill, and it’s largely absent from the coding interview process.

The Art of the Merge: What We Should Be Testing

In the real world, developers don’t just write new code from scratch. They spend much of their time adding features to existing systems, reviewing code written by colleagues, and debugging issues that crop up in established projects. This is where we should focus our attention when evaluating candidates.

  1. Code Reviews:

A more realistic evaluation would involve asking candidates to review a pull request. Can they offer constructive feedback? Do they recognize potential issues or suggest better alternatives? This is much closer to the collaborative process of building software in a team.

  1. Enhancing Existing Code:

Instead of giving a clean slate problem, ask the candidate to add a feature to an existing codebase. This mimics the everyday reality of a developer’s job, where they need to work within the constraints of an established architecture.

  1. Debugging:

Debugging is one of the most important and time-consuming aspects of software development. Rather than testing someone’s ability to write a complex algorithm in 30 minutes, it’s far more telling to see how they approach diagnosing and fixing a bug in a larger system.

Granted, these approaches can be more complex to implement for an interview, but the payoff is an improved approach to candidate evaluation.

Experience Matters

For recent graduates or developers with limited professional experience, coding interviews can still serve as a reasonable way to gauge their problem-solving skills and fundamental knowledge. But for more seasoned developers, these interviews fall short. A developer with years of experience should be evaluated based on their track record — the projects they’ve shipped, the systems they’ve worked on, and their public code contributions, if available. These give a far more nuanced picture of a developer’s capabilities than whether they can code FizzBuzz.

A Better Path Forward

There’s a smarter way to assess developer talent. Let’s consider moving away from the outdated model of high-pressure coding or whiteboard challenges and incorporate more realistic assessments. Code reviews, debugging exercises, and discussions about past projects give a better understanding of how a developer operates in the real world.

The myth that coding interviews are the ultimate test of a developer’s ability needs to be put to rest. What we should be looking for is the ability to collaborate, think critically, and produce maintainable, high-quality code. Skills that are much more representative of what a developer actually does on a daily basis.

Let’s move towards an interview process that reflects the collaborative, problem-solving nature of modern software development. After all, when was the last time you had to solve an algorithm problem in under 30 minutes while your boss stood over your shoulder?