In that case, the interview question is working as intended. For most of our roles, we want several years of Rails experience, and we are clear about that fact in the job listing. If someone applies without Rails experience, they either didn't read the job listing, or are desperate to find any job. While I empathize with folks in the latter situation, our positions really do require the experience, and the job market isn't so bad right now that a smart candidate should be going a long time without finding something.
If you happen to have Rails experience but it was several jobs ago, the task we give you is basic enough that you should be able to Google what you need during the task to refresh your memory fairly quickly. In fact, I did this when I applied, having not worked with Rails in a number of years.
Edit: My main point is, even if you technically do have to "study" (really, just Google a few basic Rails concepts) if you're rusty, everything you do is preparing you for the actual job. Studying how to implement a hashmap, or computing the longest palindrome from a string of characters, or whatever other harebrained problem FAANG etc want to ask, is 99% of the time not really helping you prepare for those jobs.
No, it doesn’t. I was just giving an example from personal experience.
For any given job, I believe there’s a way to design an assessment that allows the candidate to demonstrate skills directly relevant to the job, even if the job doesn’t have requirements that are as specific as “Rails developer with a few years of experience.” I have yet to see a single job listing in several decades in the industry where I think to myself “ah yes, the only way to find qualified candidates for the job would be to ask them to implement a quadtree.”
I've done a lot of whiteboarding interviews in my life and it's never been "implement a quadtree." It's always, at its core, a small coding probably that could plausibly be part of a real-world problem, and therefore it is directly relevant to the job.
I've also never been asked a question like this, but it's because I specifically avoid the companies that are known to ask them. Sounds like you have as well (knowingly or not). But the OP is about LeetCode-style interviews, so that's what I was discussing.
Are you claiming that no company asks irrelevant leetcode-style questions as part of its interview process? If so, that’ll require some more evidence than “well, I haven’t been asked any such questions.”
I'm rejecting your characterization of "leetcode-style" questions as 1) irrelevant 2) primarily about simply implementing some obscure data structure (as opposed to correctly using data structures).
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear; I didn't mean to say that all LC questions are irrelevant. I was just asking if you're claiming that no company uses LC questions which are irrelevant. Because if you are, that seems like a pretty difficult claim to prove given all the stories out there on every company review/discussion site like Blind or Glassdoor.
And my "implement a quadtree" example was hyperbole; again I'm sorry if you didn't recognize it as such. I do suspect we have wildly different definitons of what questions qualify as "relevant to the position," though, so I'm not sure how far we're going to get in this discussion.
Because the interviewers themselves typically have wide latitude to select the actual question, no, I don't think such a thing can be claimed. But I'd say the majority of questions asked are reasonable ones that can plausibly be solved in the timeframe and the majority of interviewers I've observed from that side of the table have not expected perfection or wanted their candidates to fail.
I don't think I (nor most others commenting here) were claiming that the questions couldn't be solved in the timeframe, that interviewers expected perfection, or that they wanted candidates to fail. So I'm not really sure why you brought that up.
If you happen to have Rails experience but it was several jobs ago, the task we give you is basic enough that you should be able to Google what you need during the task to refresh your memory fairly quickly. In fact, I did this when I applied, having not worked with Rails in a number of years.
Edit: My main point is, even if you technically do have to "study" (really, just Google a few basic Rails concepts) if you're rusty, everything you do is preparing you for the actual job. Studying how to implement a hashmap, or computing the longest palindrome from a string of characters, or whatever other harebrained problem FAANG etc want to ask, is 99% of the time not really helping you prepare for those jobs.