I agree, that is how many big tech interviews look. I've done 'em too. If one's dream job is a generic, mid-level role at BigTech, then the path is clear - get very good at Leetcode and system design, and flag down a recruiter.

My dream jobs tend to be more eclectic, and not necessarily at giant companies. I'm more interested in getting really skilled at a particular type of technology and being hired to work on that. And this kind of targeted recruitment still exists at big companies, too.

But also Leetcode doesn't scare me too much, so maybe I'm dismissing it too easily. I've done a lot of those problems over the years, and I'm FAR from great at them but it's never been the blocker to a particular role in practice.

It seems like you're really focused on the interview process for a small number of very large tech companies. My experience doesn't match yours - I have been recruited to a specific BigTech team based on my background, and the interviews were more focused on specific skills than leetcode. But it seems like most BigTech interviews probably are coding/system design.

With that said, I have tended to interview more at scaleups/late-stage startups in recent years, and it's been very rare to see a truly leetcode-heavy interview process. These are positions that pay comparably to big tech, although the equity is generally more risky. But I've also been able to cash out some startup equity, so maybe my experience is not representative again...

> Most people’s “dreams” have nothing to do with working

This line always seems like a cop-out to me. Almost all of us have to work, and it takes a huge amount of our time. And for many of us in the tech industry, we have been intrinsically interested in this tech since we were kids, and have specific stuff we'd prefer to work on. Can we just accept that certain work is going to be more interesting for certain people, and that they might want to steer their careers in that direction, especially if it pays better?

By pay similar to BigTech do you mean the cash you get paid at a startup/scale up is similar to cash + liquid public RSUs?

Equity in private companies especially in today’s climate is statistically meaningless.

And if you look at the companies that pay the most + have the largest number of opportunities, they are the “small number” of BigTech companies

And back to the Bay Area argument. Most of the major public tech companies have offices all over the US that pay the same with a much lower cost of living.

    > Equity in private companies especially in today’s climate is statistically meaningless.

Does that include Stripe and SpaceX?

Stripe has given their employees a chance to sell their equity via a tender offer. SpaceX I’m not sure

There has to be a market of people who actually want to buy the equity and the company has to allow it. In the case of “scale up” early startups - the type the original commenter said he works for - usually either there is no one that wants to buy the equity or it’s a steep discount

Let me try to state your overall point, as I understand it:

"The primary goal of a tech career is generally to get a high-paying, low-risk job. Many of those jobs are in Big Tech. You should optimize for getting one of those jobs (but ideally not in the Bay Area, because it has a high cost of living.) To do that, you should primarily focus on grinding Leetcode and system design, because those are what Big Tech will evaluate you on. There are no loopholes worth speaking of, and you will be competing with many other engineers for the same positions."

Feel free to correct me if I'm not getting it right. I have no particular issue with someone whose career strategy is the one above. It's actually important information for someone to learn, especially if they come from a small town, like I did, where Google et al. never darken your door.

However, that approach is not a common one in my community. Instead, I see people who exited startups as founders or early employees, people who had particular skills directly recruited by BigTech and others, people who worked at private companies with regular internal liquidity events. People who worked on stuff, by and large, that was interesting to them. People who have plenty of job opportunities, and don't feel like they're one of a thousand people competing for each position. By and large, I prefer this approach.

Again, we can look at statistics instead of suffering from survivorship bias. The vast majority of employees in startups will not see outsized gains from exits especially in todays climate where the IPO market is dead and acquisitions are going for much less.