Originally published on LeetCopilot Blog
Some say the system is broken; others say you're lazy. Here is the brutal truth about the 'Fuck LeetCode' debate (and why both sides are wrong).
Let's address the elephant in the room.
Every time someone posts "fuck LeetCode" online, two things happen:
- A wave of engineers says: "FINALLY. Someone said it. The system is broken."
- Another wave fires back: "Stop whining. Everyone else did it. You're just lazy."
And then they argue for 500 comments without changing anyone's mind.
So let's actually settle this. Is the "fuck LeetCode" sentiment a legitimate critique of broken hiring—or just an excuse from people who don't want to put in the work?
The honest answer: It's both. And understanding which parts apply to you is the only way forward.
TL;DR (For Those Too Fried to Read)
- Both sides have a point: The system IS broken AND some people use "fuck LeetCode" as an excuse to avoid effort
- Valid critiques: LeetCode doesn't predict job performance, favors memorization, excludes talented people unfairly, and creates toxic grind culture
- Invalid uses: Using the critique to avoid all preparation, blame the system for personal gaps, or skip effort entirely
- The "lazy developer" accusation is also partly wrong: It ignores structural inequities and unequal time access
- The real answer: Acknowledge the problems, prepare strategically anyway, and advocate for better hiring practices
Why "Fuck LeetCode" Gets Said in the First Place
The frustration isn't random. It's not just laziness. There are specific, recurring pain points that drive engineers to this sentiment.
The Job-Interview Disconnect
When you're grinding "Median of Two Sorted Arrays" or "Longest Palindromic Substring," you're optimizing for puzzle-solving that has nothing to do with:
- Debugging a production incident
- Reviewing a teammate's pull request
- Designing a scalable API
- Refactoring legacy spaghetti
- Writing documentation humans can actually read
A senior engineer with 10 years of distributed systems experience can fail a LeetCode medium because they haven't memorized two-pointer tricks. Meanwhile, a bootcamp grad who spent 6 months drilling algorithms might ace the interview and struggle to contribute to actual codebases.
That disconnect creates legitimate questions about what these interviews are really measuring.
The Time Investment Is Brutal
Preparing for LeetCode-style interviews isn't a weekend project:
- 200-300 problems to feel "comfortable"
- 2-3 hours per day for 3-6 months
- Endless pattern memorization
- Constant anxiety about forgetting edge cases
For developers already working full-time, this is soul-crushing. You're spending evenings and weekends on algorithm trivia instead of learning things that would actually make you better at your job.
The frustration isn't about avoiding effort. It's about misallocated effort.
It Favors Specific Backgrounds
LeetCode creates an uneven playing field:
Advantaged:
- Recent CS grads (algorithms fresh from coursework)
- Competitive programmers (pattern recognition is muscle memory)
- People with grinding time (unemployed, no family obligations)
- Those who can afford Premium, courses, coaching
Disadvantaged:
- Self-taught developers (no formal algorithms training)
- Career changers (learning to code + LeetCode simultaneously)
- Working parents (limited time for hundreds of practice problems)
- Experienced engineers (rusty on obscure algorithms they haven't used in years)
This isn't about skill. It's about who can afford to play the game. And that creates real equity problems.
When the Criticism IS Valid
The critique is legitimate when it points to systemic problems:
1. LeetCode Doesn't Predict Job Performance
Research shows weak correlation between algorithmic interview performance and on-the-job success. Great engineers fail these tests. Mediocre engineers pass them.
2. It Rewards Memorization Over Problem-Solving
Pattern recognition ("this is a sliding window problem") matters more than first-principles thinking. You're not solving novel problems—you're matching known patterns you've seen before.
3. It Excludes Talented People Unfairly
Senior engineers who've been building products for years get rejected because they can't invert a binary tree in 20 minutes. Self-taught developers with impressive portfolios don't get past initial screens.
4. It Creates Toxic Grind Culture
Anxiety, burnout, impostor syndrome. Developers feel like frauds if they can't solve mediums quickly. The process is psychologically exhausting in ways that have nothing to do with actual engineering ability.
These are real problems. Dismissing them as "whining" ignores legitimate critiques of how the industry hires.
When the Criticism Becomes an Excuse
But let's be honest: sometimes "fuck LeetCode" crosses from valid critique into excuse-making.
Using It to Avoid Preparation Entirely
"LeetCode is bullshit, so I'm not going to prep at all."
Reality check: If companies use it, you need a strategy—even if you disagree with the system. Complaining doesn't change the rules of the game you're choosing to play.
Blaming the System for Personal Gaps
"I failed because LeetCode is broken" when the real issue might be lack of structured practice, poor time management, or not actually putting in the work.
The system can be flawed AND you can still improve your approach. Both things can be true.
Making It a Permanent Identity
"I'm just not a LeetCode person" becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Some people use the critique as a shield against effort.
Ignoring Alternative Paths
Complaining about LeetCode while only applying to FAANG companies that require it is contradictory. There ARE companies that don't use LeetCode-style interviews. Did you apply there?
The distinction is clear: Critiquing the system is valid. Using that critique to avoid all effort is not.
What the "Lazy Developer" Accusation Gets Wrong
Now let's address the other side—people who dismiss all "fuck LeetCode" sentiment as laziness.
This response misses several important points:
Effort ≠ Fairness
"I did 500 problems and got into Google" doesn't prove the system is fair. It proves you succeeded within a flawed system.
The fact that some people overcome unfair barriers doesn't make those barriers justified.
Not Everyone Has Equal Time
Telling a working parent with two kids to "just grind for 6 months" ignores reality. Someone fresh out of college with no obligations can dedicate 4 hours/day. A single parent working full-time cannot.
Dismissing their concerns as "excuses" is tone-deaf to real constraints.
The Goalposts Keep Moving
20 years ago: demonstrate you can code.
10 years ago: LeetCode Easy problems.
Today: Mediums and Hards + system design + behavioral + take-homes.
The bar keeps rising not because jobs got harder, but because companies can afford to be picky. That's market dynamics, not laziness.
Structural Inequities Exist
Some developers have:
- Access to top-tier CS programs
- Mentors who guide interview prep
- Financial stability to focus on learning
- Networks that generate referrals
Others don't. Calling people "lazy" for struggling ignores these advantages.
So What's the Actual Answer?
Here's the pragmatic reality: You can critique the system AND prepare strategically. Both are necessary.
Accept the Current Reality (For Now)
LeetCode-style interviews are the standard at many companies. You may hate it. You may think it's broken. But if you want to work at those companies, you need a strategy.
This doesn't mean accepting it as good. It means acknowledging it as real.
Prepare Smart, Not Obsessive
You don't need 500 problems. You need targeted practice:
Instead of:
- Doing problems randomly
- Aiming for 100% coverage
- Grinding for months without a plan
Do:
- Focus on high-frequency patterns (sliding window, two pointers, BFS/DFS, hash maps, DP)
- Solve 100-150 well-chosen problems, not 500 random ones
- Practice explaining your thought process (communication matters as much as code)
- Use spaced repetition to actually retain what you learn
Tools like LeetCopilot help you practice smarter by providing hints instead of spoilers, so you're building problem-solving skills, not just memorizing solutions.
Broaden Your Job Search
Don't limit yourself to LeetCode-gated companies. Many use different evaluation methods:
- Portfolio reviews (show what you've built)
- Take-home projects (more realistic, less pressure)
- Pair programming (collaborative, less adversarial)
- System design focus (tests architecture skills)
Companies like Shopify, GitLab, and many startups have moved away from heavy LeetCode emphasis. Research alternatives.
Advocate for Change While You Prep
You can prepare for LeetCode AND push for better hiring:
- Write about why the process is flawed
- Support companies using better evaluation methods
- If you get influence, change how your team hires
- Share alternative interview formats
Critique and action aren't mutually exclusive.
FAQ: For the Conflicted
"Isn't complaining about LeetCode just coping?"
Sometimes. But often it's legitimate critique from highly skilled engineers who passed interviews and still think the process is broken. Dismissing all criticism as coping ignores real systemic problems.
"If LeetCode is so bad, why do top companies use it?"
Because it's easy to standardize and scale. It's not a good evaluation method—it's a convenient one. Companies with massive applicant volumes need filters, even imperfect ones.
"Should I skip LeetCode and just build projects?"
If you're targeting portfolio-based companies, yes. But most big tech requires LeetCode rounds, so you'll likely need both. Projects demonstrate skill; LeetCode gets you past the gate.
"How do I know if I'm being lazy or legitimately frustrated?"
Ask yourself: Are you taking action within the system while critiquing it, or just complaining and doing nothing? Valid critique involves finding pragmatic solutions, not just venting.
Final Thoughts
The "fuck LeetCode" sentiment is both valid and incomplete.
It's valid because:
- LeetCode doesn't predict job performance
- It creates unfair barriers
- It rewards memorization over problem-solving
- It causes real psychological harm
It's incomplete because:
- Complaining alone doesn't solve your interview problem
- You have agency within the flawed system
- Alternative paths exist
- Strategic preparation works
The answer isn't to dismiss the frustration or wallow in it. It's to validate the critique, prepare strategically, and advocate for better alternatives.
The developers who thrive aren't the ones who blindly grind or only complain. They're the ones who acknowledge the problem, prepare smart (not just hard), and use their success to push for better systems.
That's the real answer to "is fuck LeetCode justified?" Yes—and here's what you do about it.
Ready to prepare strategically instead of just grinding? LeetCopilot helps you learn patterns, not just memorize solutions—with AI hints that build understanding instead of creating dependence.
If you're looking for an AI assistant to help you master LeetCode patterns and prepare for coding interviews, check out LeetCopilot.
Top comments (0)