The Love-Hate Reality of Coding Interviews: Why Speed Is Winning Over Quality

Coding interviews have always been controversial. For some developers, they’re a fun challenge, a way to show problem-solving skills under pressure. For others, they’re a source of frustration — a test that feels more like a game show than a reflection of the real work we do.

I’ve been on both sides of this. Years ago, I remember being asked to solve binary tree problems. It had been ages since I’d done anything like that, and I couldn’t help thinking: When was the last time anyone at this company inverted a binary tree as part of their daily job? Another time, I was asked to build a queue messaging system using child processes. The kicker? Every company I’ve ever worked for already relied on established platforms like RabbitMQ, Kafka, or Azure Service Bus. I wasn’t solving a problem — I was pretending none of the tools we use in real life existed.

In another interview, I wasn’t allowed to use IntelliSense or even check documentation. I had to code as if I was cut off from the environment I use every day. These kinds of scenarios highlight a deeper problem: coding interviews often strip away the very things that make us productive developers.

Why Companies Use Coding Challenges

There are reasons coding tests exist, and some of them are fair. They allow recruiters to standardize evaluations, scale the hiring process, and, especially for juniors, offer a chance to prove ability without much prior work history. Platforms like HackerRank or LeetCode make it easy to automate the process and filter hundreds of candidates quickly.

But speed and scale come at a cost. The result is often a one-dimensional test of how well someone has practiced algorithm puzzles, not how well they can build and maintain software in the messy, real world.

Why They Fail Senior Developers

For senior developers, the value we bring goes far beyond raw coding drills. We:

• Design systems that are resilient and scalable.

• Mentor junior developers and guide teams.

• Make trade-offs between speed and long-term sustainability.

• Navigate legacy code, third-party services, and integrations.

Coding challenges rarely measure these skills. Instead, they focus on whether you can code like a machine under time pressure. That approach not only misrepresents senior experience, but also filters out strong engineers who could excel in the actual role.

What a Good Interview Looks Like

Not all interviews are bad. One of the best I ever had was supposed to be a short, thirty-minute technical screen for a senior role. Instead, it turned into a two-and-a-half-hour conversation between two developers. We never touched a whiteboard or a coding exercise. Instead, we discussed design ideas and possible solutions for a new project. We explored how technologies like gRPC, Node.js, C#, React, and Flutter might fit together, even though neither of us knew the exact end goal of the project.

What made it valuable wasn’t solving a problem on the spot, but sharing perspectives. The interviewer had far more experience than me, but I was able to contribute with insights from my own background and “outside the box” experience. It felt like two professionals exchanging ideas — the kind of collaboration that actually happens in real software projects.

That interview left me with the sense that this company valued depth, conversation, and practical experience more than memorization. Ironically, I learned something new from the interviewer, and they learned something from me. That’s what a real senior-level interview should feel like.

The Outsourcing Problem

Another factor is the rise of third-party recruitment firms. Many companies now outsource developer hiring to agencies whose main incentive is volume and speed. The faster they can place a candidate, the more profitable they are. Quality interviews take time, and time cuts into the bottom line.

This shift has turned developer hiring into a commodity business. Agencies lean heavily on standardized coding tests, because they’re easy to administer and quick to grade. The end result? Developers are treated less like professionals and more like replaceable parts.

Quantity Over Quality in the Industry

This isn’t just about interviews. Look at the last decade of Silicon Valley. Startups consume massive amounts of resources, raise millions, and burn through developer energy at incredible rates. Yet how many of those “disruptive” ideas actually produced lasting value?

Too often, companies optimize for speed and growth at all costs. Developers get caught in the cycle: constant sprints, endless backlogs, and the hamster wheel of “agile” where velocity matters more than craftsmanship. Quality is now treated as synonymous with wasted time.

In that environment, it’s no surprise that hiring practices also emphasize speed over quality. If the goal is fast output and fast replacement, why wouldn’t interviews be designed to move quickly rather than evaluate deeply?

What We’re Losing

When interviews reduce developers to puzzle solvers, and when hiring shifts toward quantity over quality, we lose something important:

• The craft of software engineering.

• The recognition that experience and judgment matter.

• The ability to build systems that last longer than the next funding cycle.

We also lose good developers who walk away frustrated, not because they can’t solve algorithm problems, but because they know these tests don’t reflect the value they bring.

A Better Way

Interviews don’t have to be broken. There are better approaches:

• Pair programming on realistic tasks.

• System design exercises that reflect actual company challenges.

• Reviewing or refactoring real code samples.

• Allowing candidates to use their normal tools, from IntelliSense to documentation to modern AI assistants.

These approaches measure what matters: judgment, collaboration, and the ability to solve real-world problems with the right tools.

Closing Thought

I don’t object to coding challenges themselves. What I object to is when they’re disconnected from the reality of the work. When interviews prize speed over quality, when they strip away the tools we actually use, and when they treat developers as interchangeable parts, we all lose.

The best engineers aren’t the ones who can invert a binary tree in ten minutes. They’re the ones who can design systems that won’t collapse under real users, guide their teams through tough trade-offs, and deliver value that lasts.

Until interviews reflect that, they’ll remain a love-hate ritual that says more about speed than about quality.