Or don't agree to interviews that include algo challenges, leetcode/hackerrank nonsense, array shuffling shenanigans. Choose companies that put thought into their evaluations.
Just my $0.02: I'd much rather spend a few weeks refreshing basic data structures and algorithms than doing the "non-algo" challenges I've gotten because they feel way less objective than getting questions where there's a correct answer.
Most of the time the alternative to non-algorithm questions is some form of take home assignment that's usually multiple hours long and that you get no feedback on or chance to correct.
For example, I interviewed with a company where they asked me to design a program to parse some CSV data and I was told in the next round I would pair with an engineer to go over an expansion of the code. The parsing was trivial in Python and I submitted my solution with full unit tests and what seemed sensible to me, but it was as useless of an exercise as asking me algorithm questions because on a job I'm almost always going to adjust my coding style and paradigm to the context and needs of the company.
I commented my code as such to explain that if there were different constraints on the data size or API I would make different design choices than the one I submitted, but it didn't matter - I submitted and received a rejection less than 24 hours later and never got to the next round where I would actually walk through the code with an engineer. It was a complete waste of multiple hours of my time trying to produce thoughtfully designed code - I'd much rather bang out a breadth first search in 45 minutes.
On one hand I like take-home exercises because they are closer to what is a real world job and I guarantee the quality of my deliveries. Up to now I can say I've passed every single take home exercise that was thrown at me. On the other hand... the time I spent on those is abysmal. If I sum it up, I must have spent over a month working on take-home exercises. And even if I passed all of them, in the end no company gave me an offer because I wasn't a cultural fit or something. One company even ghosted me after having me to do a 1-week take-home exercise where I had to build an entire app, front end and back end, that consumed an open data API that had 1 million rows.
I still prefer take-home exercises because are more realistic and make more sense than timed, algorithmic exercises. But I wish companies would do their cultural fitness thing _before_ having candidates to spend their time on their code challenges.
The interview is about interpersonal skills as well, even in the case of "technical" tests.
I've given specially crafted answers based on what I could tell about the interviewer and what he wanted to hear.
Your solution might have looked simplistic/smug and that's why they rejected you.
Was that a good reverse filter for you?
For me it wouldn't have been, and I'd have given then the sensible solution in the scope of the interview.
I had the same thoughts, but changed them over time. If not leetcode, it quickly comes to very specific questions about the interviewer's favourite thing and its quirks. A complete hit or miss.
