Skip to main content

Why I Still Prefer Whiteboard Interviews

Coding platforms aren’t bad — but they miss the point.

If you’re trying to hire someone who can think through a problem, adapt under uncertainty, and communicate their reasoning, whiteboard interviews are still the best option we have.

🎯 Whiteboards Aren’t Perfect — But They Capture Signal​

In a whiteboard interview:

  • You can sketch out ideas.
  • You can narrate your thought process.
  • You can pivot mid-way and explain why.
  • You can reason about tradeoffs even before writing code.

Even if the interviewer stays silent, they’re observing:

  • How you break down the problem
  • What you prioritize
  • How you handle ambiguity

That’s signal.

⚠️ Platforms Strip That Signal Away​

Now contrast that with a coding platform:

  • No pseudocode allowed
  • No real-time discussion
  • No visibility into why you made certain decisions
  • No partial credit for good structure with a small bug

All they see is:

  • ✅ How many test cases passed
  • ⏱ How fast you ran it
  • 🧪 Whether it matched expected output

You might have structured the solution well, handled edge cases, and written clean code — but if one cast is wrong, you’re out.

The candidate who hardcodes edge cases might get further than the one who almost solved it the right way.

🤷 I Don’t Know What Employers Actually See​

That’s the real problem.

Most of these platforms offer features like:

  • Session replay
  • Annotated code
  • Debug logs
  • Commit diffs
  • Time per submission

But do employers actually use any of that? Or do they just filter by “tests passed” and move on?

I don’t know.
And neither do you.
And that uncertainty shapes how everyone behaves.

🧠 Platform Nudges Backfire​

Some platforms try to “educate” candidates:

"It’s better to fully solve one problem than partially solve three."
"Avoid hardcoding for specific inputs."
"Don’t worry if you fail a test case — we’re looking for thinking."

But those nudges often backfire.

Now candidates:

  • Feel paralyzed trying to fully solve one thing “the right way”
  • Context switch prematurely when they hit a blocker
  • Try to “look thoughtful” instead of being efficient
  • Second-guess the grading rubric instead of focusing on the problem

It’s no longer a test of engineering — it’s a game of trying to guess what the reviewer cares about.

✍️ In a Whiteboard Interview, You Fail Legibly​

This is what makes whiteboards better, even if you don’t solve the problem:

  • You fail in a way that’s visible
  • You show your prioritization and assumptions
  • You display your ability to adapt your plan
  • You show your understanding of the problem space

Even an incomplete solution can reveal:

"This person would 100% solve this if they had a little more time — and I understand exactly how they think."

That’s what companies should want.

🧱 Until Platforms Catch Up, I’ll Stick to the Board​

Until platforms build systems that:

  • Make intent as visible as output
  • Give employers tools to filter on process, not just results
  • Incentivize clear reasoning, not just test-passing hacks

...I'll keep preferring a whiteboard and a dry erase marker.

It’s not about nostalgia.
It’s about signal.
And platforms — for all their data — still struggle to capture it.

Want practical tips for surviving platform interviews anyway?
Check out the Leetcode Toolbox for patterns and tactics that help you get clean-enough code submitted under pressure.