Hot take from the author: This is a commonly repeated claim, but it’s probably not accurate.
It’s FAR easier for companies to stick with the interview process they’ve used for decades—just mandate in-person interviews again—than to reinvent the wheel with some new, unproven format. Sure, there’s a growing need to assess more than just DS&A in initial screenings, but let’s be honest: those interviews aren’t going anywhere.
The REAL reason to make these resources free? Because it’s not a competitive advantage to offer problems to practice. There are already tons of free problems online. The real value isn’t in giving people a place to do problems—that already exists. The value is in the book. If you already know enough to do well on problems without the book, then you shouldn't have to pay to practice it.
I can see how you’d get to that conclusion, but I don’t agree with this take. “No value” is particularly strong wording. This is a fairly simple, cheap, and fast process for screening people at scale (think “hundreds per week”), I agree that startups mostly shouldn’t rely on this type of interview (and most don’t from what I can gather).
None of us authors are advocating exclusively for this interview type. Designing real-world systems is great, which is why most big tech companies have system design rounds in their processes (except for new grad interviews).
Finally, speaking as someone with diagnosed severe anxiety and a specific disorder that causes frequent panic attacks, I completely empathize with being a “fish out of water” in this process. If it helps, you should know that most big tech companies have accommodations for such things depending on your needs (extra time, allowance of service animals in the interview room, etc). I’m not sure any interview process will be anxiety-free (it isn’t for “normal” people either), but through time and effort I have passed Google, Meta, Amazon, and other big tech interviews that have this process. In my experience, these are hindrances to be addressed but not immovable blockers to passing an interview.
I love this comment, and as an author of this book, I don't disagree with a word of it.
A common misconception is that Gayle's original book put forth the "right" way to do interviews. Gayle neither invented or encouraged the current interview structure. Gayle discusses the timeline in more depth in a Blind AMA thread you can find online. I think a lot of people are under the impression that books like thes somehow steer the interview process toward this style of interview. At this point, all we are doing is looking at the process as it is TODAY, and trying to help provide transparency and equal information to everyone. We spend several chapters in this book talking about how broken the process is and making similar points to you, but we can't write a book on an interview process that doesn't exist and while Gayle's original book is well-circulated, she (or any of the rest of us authors) doesn't have sway over how big tech companies conduct their hiring.
With that said, I think we are seeing companies start to incorporate other interviews precisely for the reasons you've mentioned. It isn't uncommon for smaller tech companies especially to have a DS&A interview, but also include a system design interview, and maybe even a practical "build something simple like a tic-tac-toe game in front of me while I watch" kind of interview. I do believe things are getting better and more fair over time (remember two decades ago Google was literally asking riddles in an attempt to screen people). I don't buy into the narrative that these interviews should go away entirely (and if they did, it would take at least a decade) because they are still a reasonably effective way to interview people at scale. The Pragmatic Programmer guy actually had a great take on this here: https://x.com/GergelyOrosz/status/1891212829346435103
> Asking this question will show an eye for detail and a solid foundation in computer science.
My friend, you've clearly got the wrong book. I think there might be some confusion here. That exact sentence (as you've written it) doesn’t appear in our book—I just double-checked the digital version. None of the phrases “eye for detail,” “solid foundation in computer science,” or “asking this question” show up, either individually or together in our entire book.
If you're saying it is in the original Cracking the Coding Interview... ok? The book is a decade out of date at this point, and the originally linked post makes it clear that this book is very different from that one.
Companies continue to tell applicants to get the original book.
And the original book pretty much defined the current widespread techbro hiring idiocracy.
If the new book turns out to be a reversal, and begins with a passionate apology for earlier harm, and is made freely available (rather than double-dipping), and the original author goes on speaking tours (on their own dime) to recant to anyone who will listen, that would be a good start.
If it helps, we (the authors) didn't even post this to HN (or ask someone else to). We definitely will answer questions as they come up though. And we were giving away free chapters from the book before today and are just linking to it. I don't see anything we're doing that is breaking the guidelines. Lots of authors chime in when their posts/articles/books are brought up.
Oooh, I'm a BCtCI author, but I admit Sedgewick is the algo expert! His book is more about data structures and algorithms than about coding interviews (related but very different).
If you needed to completely learn data structures and algorithms from scratch, I would NOT recommend his book, but instead, his FREE COURSE since it is so much more visual (and free): https://www.coursera.org/learn/algorithms-part1
For what it is worth, taking a course on DS&A is very different than getting good at these interviews for most people. The two are closely related but very different.
If it helps, I (Mike) don't know who @stmw is. I can at least say they aren't one of the four authors of this book.
That said, I don't think the reasonable conclusion to come to when someone is supportive of a product is that they are invested in it. Sure, suspicion is a healthy thing, but for the record you can look through my comment history and see I recommend LeetCode and a coding book called EPI. No compromising connections—I just like the products and let people know about them when I see people talking about the topics. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Hey, I know Shaun personally, and I think his book is excellent. Our books, despite seeming similar, are very different. His is about recognizing preset patterns, and that is about the extent of it. No outreach advice, negotiation strategies, resume opinions, behavioral help, etc. His book also seems to focus heavily on quantity, as he ends up going through 100+ leetcode problems.
I'd heartily endorse his book, but they definitely are more different than similar. EPI is also another excellent book with a very different style.
Here is a link to nine chapters of Beyond Cracking the Coding Interview for free in case you're still curious about it: https://bctci.co/free-chapters
Whoa, I appreciate the sneak peek PDF and response! CCTI was my first book I bought for grinding software engineer interviews. I’ll definitely revisit whether to get the new version after reading the first 9 chapters!
The book also has a discord server (link in the free PDF!), so if you have other questions, feel free to ping me there with them! We are about to start the weekly leetcode contest, and there will be a write-up after it finishes on which techniques and templates we've used from the book, which might give you more of a sense of how different it is. Hope to see you there, my friend!
Your proactive responses has me sold! Just bought the book off Amazon. I'm looking forward joining the Discord/Leetcode Contest too. It's really hard for me to get my momentum going and hoping the contest will give me the boost I need!
Hey, thanks for the support. You can always reach out to me directly on Discord if you need anything. Nil and I wrote all of the technical content for the book, so we are happy to help in any way we can and do our best to stay available—especially to our supporters! :) I hope to see you there!
Hey there, I'm the Mike (an author of BCtCI). I totally get where you’re coming from—there are a lot of flaws in the interview process, no doubt about it.
When Cracking the Coding Interview was originally written, the intention wasn’t to claim, it as a perfect process and to give ideal questions that should be asked. In fact, there are many questions in the original book that I wouldn’t recommend any interviewer use. The real purpose was to shed light on a process that had been shrouded in secrecy for decades, long before the book existed.
The reality is, like them or not, these types of interviews aren’t going anywhere—whether or not resources like mine are available. So the real question becomes: Should the process remain some insider-only system where only those with well-connected friends know what to expect and how to prepare? Or should we make it more accessible, ensuring that everyone has a fair shot with similar resources?
For me, the answer is clear: transparency and equal access for all. It’s not about endorsing the process—it’s about making sure the playing field is level.
That's fair. I didn't mean to condemn you. Sorry if it came across that way. Honestly I was just curious. I'm in the (apparent minority) of devs who actually like solving leetcode-style problems, so the current system doesn't bother me a ton.
It really resonates with me because during my university years, I myself had a poor social network. As soon as I started interviewing, I was like, “WTF is this?!” whereas some better connected peers seemed to somehow “just know” how to be prepared to interview. There definitely wasn’t equal access.
Appreciate the comment, and you're completely right. Our whole thesis is that doing what everybody else is doing will get you the same results that everybody else is getting. :)
It’s FAR easier for companies to stick with the interview process they’ve used for decades—just mandate in-person interviews again—than to reinvent the wheel with some new, unproven format. Sure, there’s a growing need to assess more than just DS&A in initial screenings, but let’s be honest: those interviews aren’t going anywhere.
The REAL reason to make these resources free? Because it’s not a competitive advantage to offer problems to practice. There are already tons of free problems online. The real value isn’t in giving people a place to do problems—that already exists. The value is in the book. If you already know enough to do well on problems without the book, then you shouldn't have to pay to practice it.