This is the sweet spot that products like LeetCode or BinarySearch could be used to solve - people who have the academic background, and should know how to code if they're coming out of a good program, but don't have a portfolio of work to show or a catalogue of experience to draw examples and answers from for a typical interview. And all the DSA stuff that is irrelevant for 90% of dev jobs 90% of the time is still fresh in their mind.
Ask them 2-3 LC easies/mediums in the language of their choice for them to prove they can actually write code, and that's really all you need. Unfortunately it somehow became "let's have a 5 hour long two-part panel interview where we ask you half a dozen LC hards and oh yeah don't google anything" as a way to hire experienced people who have a decade of work they can talk about the discuss ad nauseum.
I can't do LeetCode to save my life. I'm not that kind of natural Google-tier genius.
But I have a relevant PhD, demonstrable industry experience leading a recognisable project, many papers, lots of experience developing juniors, influential keynotes, blog posts, etc.
If you used LeetCode you wouldn't hire me. I don't know if you think that's a loss or not? But it's a data point.
At this point in the game hiring based on LC isn't optimizing for hiring people who can code (I think that may have been the case 3-4 years ago), so we don't use it for anyone. Now it's just optimizing for people who have A) heard of LC (who cares); B) have a basic understanding of DSA (good); C) have taken the necessary 0.5-3 months to memorize the handful of patterns that show up (who cares). I can understand why companies like FAANG that get thousands of resumes use it as a filter, though.
But I will say in my experience a PhD is a red flag for a developer, especially if you're highlighting your academic experience on your resume. It's just that the skills that make you successful in getting a PhD don't necessarily translate to day-to-day software development and in some cases will hinder you/the team.
I have about a decade of real professional coding experience. Not going to say I'm excellent, or near the caliber of developer FAANG are looking for, but I can write code. I can count on one finger the number of interviews I've got in the past couple years. Zilch. There is a massive disconnect from what you hear on the news, and the reality, where somebody like me is a pariah and the deafening silence of _any_ interest.
This is just outsourcing 2.0, this time under the guise of a lack of qualified candidates.
What do you mean by "someone like me?" Your reality is not any reality I've experienced.
I work for a company nobody here has heard of, working on a boring tech stack. Absolutely nothing I do day to day would make into any blog post, let alone anything on HN. I, and my ~dozen or so coworkers, get at least one cold recruiter contact a week. Obviously most of them are garbage. But we've all gotten the random contact from an Amazon or Microsoft or Facebook recruiter. The interviews are available.
YC runs workatastartup.com - I submitted my resume and a two-sentence intro to 5 or 6 companies and I think I got an interview at all but one. The interview is the easy part, and if you can't even get that with a decade of programming experience, you're getting caught in some arbitrary filter. Which is to say, respectfully, you're doing something wrong because that's simply not what the market is right now. Or, you're not quite as qualified as you think you are.
Not going to lie, as soon as you mentioned LC I was disinterested. But your suggestion sounds good. A few easy/medium questions and maybe the ability to Google sounds fair. I sort of enjoy basic fizz bang code screenings.
And just to be clear I'm only suggesting it for junior positions. Most of the time I think you can suss out whether someone can code by discussing their direct contributions to previous projects. If not, you can always do one LC problem.
I see it as a great way to just run a sanity check that this person who graduated from Random State six months ago can actually code, and as a great way to ensure high quality very senior people refuse to go through your interview (unless you're paying FAANG wages).
Ask them 2-3 LC easies/mediums in the language of their choice for them to prove they can actually write code, and that's really all you need. Unfortunately it somehow became "let's have a 5 hour long two-part panel interview where we ask you half a dozen LC hards and oh yeah don't google anything" as a way to hire experienced people who have a decade of work they can talk about the discuss ad nauseum.