Mythbusting Competitive Programming – You don't need to learn it

Isn&#x27;t the idea of competitive programming not about learning to be clever, but about being such a good programmer you can come up with these clever things, and have a fun outlet for it? Competitive programming isn&#x27;t a goal per se, so much as it is being able to compete is a result of actually being good enough at something to <i>become</i> clever about it.<p>Runners tend to be <i>good</i> runners before they ever attempt to break world records. Chain saw jugglers tend to be good regular jugglers before they switch to chain saws and then attempt world records.<p>In a professional setting, clever is pretty much always stupid.<p>There&#x27;s nothing wrong with competitive programming. But like juggling chainsaws, it isn&#x27;t worth much outside of pub talk. It is something fun for those who have the skill, or enjoy seeing the skill demonstrated in crazy&#x2F;entertaining ways.<p>And most importantly, &quot;Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.&quot; -- Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs, MIT Press

At this point, does anyone seriously consider LeetCode et al to be a &quot;good&quot; way to pick candidates? The impression I get is that it&#x27;s typically considered the least bad option, at best.<p>The only insight I might add here is that selecting for candidates who are willing and able to sink time into algorithm study is also selecting for candidates who won&#x27;t go home at 5:30 if you give them problems to solve. That probably isn&#x27;t an accident.