'Forget coding, just learn how to cheat': Startup cofounder reacts to Reddit post claiming cheaters get jobs faster

For years, engineering students have been told to master data structures and algorithms, build projects, learn new tech skills and practise coding problems if they want to land a good software job. But a Reddit post by a 2026 computer science graduate has challenged that advice in a rather blunt way. The graduate, who said he is now working at a multinational company, claimed that students who spent months preparing for coding interviews and learning skills such as AI, full-stack development and AI agents were sometimes struggling to get placed, while candidates doing cheating and using unfair methods during assessments and interviews were getting jobs. His post triggered a reaction from a startup cofounder on LinkedIn, who highlighted a deeper concern: what happens when students begin to believe that honest preparation is less useful than finding ways around the hiring process?

'Forget LeetCode, just learn how to cheat'

The Reddit user began his post with a provocative suggestion: students should stop spending so much time on LeetCode, DSA and new technical skills and instead learn how to cheat during recruitment. He claimed that some candidates were using remote-access software and AI tools to get assistance during online assessments and interviews. He also referred to platforms and tools such as RustDesk, UltraViewer and Parsec.

The post further alleged that some candidates use AI assistants such as Copilot to generate answers during assessments and interviews and maintain contacts with people who provide interview assistance. The graduate also argued that the problem does not necessarily end after a candidate gets selected. According to his post, people who had used unfair methods during recruitment could continue doing so during company training assessments.

Startup cofounder raises a different concern

The LinkedIn reaction shifted the focus from cheating itself to the incentives created by the hiring process. The startup cofounder wrote that the Reddit post "sounds ridiculous" but argued that it points to a potentially serious problem. According to the post, students are spending months learning DSA, developing projects and building AI skills, while some candidates who use unfair methods may appear to move through recruitment faster.

The concern, therefore, is not simply that some candidates cheat. It is what happens when students who are preparing honestly start wondering whether they are being disadvantaged by doing so. The cofounder described this as a shift from a placement problem to a "trust problem".

Why the debate is gaining traction

Technical hiring has increasingly relied on online coding tests, automated assessments and remote interviews. These systems are designed to help companies evaluate large numbers of candidates, but they also create challenges around identity verification, outside assistance and the authenticity of a candidate's performance.

The Reddit post reflects one person's experience and should not be treated as evidence that cheating is widespread or that legitimate preparation no longer helps candidates get jobs. There is also an important distinction between using AI to learn and using AI secretly during an assessment where outside assistance is prohibited.

AI tools can help students understand programming concepts, debug code, practise interview questions and build projects. Using such tools during a test or interview against the employer's rules is a different matter.

The changing value of coding skills

The post also touches on a question many students are already asking: how long does a technical skill remain valuable? AI-assisted coding has changed how software is developed. Employers are increasingly interested in candidates who can work with AI tools, understand systems and solve problems rather than simply write code from scratch.

That does not necessarily make DSA or programming fundamentals irrelevant. Instead, it changes what students may need to demonstrate. A candidate may be expected to understand the solution, explain why it works, modify it when requirements change and identify mistakes in AI-generated code.

Those abilities are difficult to establish if a candidate has simply obtained an answer during an assessment.

The bigger hiring challenge

For employers, the controversy highlights another question: can an online assessment reliably measure what a candidate actually knows?

Companies have several ways to address that problem, including live coding rounds, follow-up technical discussions, project-based evaluations and assessments designed to test reasoning rather than just final answers.

For students, meanwhile, the Reddit debate offers a much less comfortable lesson.

Recruitment processes may not always feel perfect. Skills also change quickly, particularly in technology. But using prohibited assistance can create a gap between what a candidate appears to know during hiring and what they can actually do after joining.

The Reddit post may have been written as deliberately provocative advice to "cheat until you crack" a job.

The LinkedIn response points to the more consequential question: if candidates start believing that gaming the hiring process is more rewarding than preparing for the job itself, the problem is no longer limited to individual interviews. It can undermine trust between students, recruiters and employers.