Coding Interview University
John Washam's multi-month computer-science study plan, and at ~352k stars one of the most-starred
repositories on GitHub of any kind. Parked in the hub _inbox on 2026-06-15 under learning-roadmaps;
ingested here when the spoke was spun out on 2026-08-04.
What it covers
Big-O and complexity; data structures — arrays, linked lists, stacks, queues, hash tables, heaps, trees, BSTs, tries, graphs; algorithms — sorting, binary search, BFS/DFS, dynamic programming, recursion, NP-completeness; plus systems material (caches, processes and threads, memory, networking) and interview practice.
What it excludes, and why that is the interesting part
Frontend, full-stack and SQL — explicitly. As a computer science education that is a strange set of omissions. As a plan for passing a particular kind of interview it is an obvious one, and the document is honest that the second is what it is.
This is the clearest instance of the spoke's founding thesis: the syllabus is cut to the shape of the assessment (interview-preparation). Nothing about caches or NP-completeness is more fundamental than SQL; it is more examined.
Form
A meta-curriculum — curated pointers to other people's books, videos and courses, sequenced into a study plan, rather than original teaching. The sequencing and the plan are the contribution.
Tier
T3. The author's own repository, describing his own study plan, with a book and career narrative attached. No independent assessment of it exists here or, as far as the corpus knows, anywhere.
T1, re-tiered 2026-08-21. This page was first held at T3 as a curated-pointer catalogue, then moved when the catalogue clause itself was rewritten the same day: a list is primary for the inclusion and exclusion decisions it states, and never for the material it links to.
What this page rests on is a stated exclusion. The plan says frontend, full stack and SQL are out of scope, and that omission — strange for a computer-science education, obvious for an interview plan — is the reason the source is in the wiki at all. It is written in the document and checkable against it.
What is still T3 here, and would be if cited: anything about the quality of the books, videos and courses the plan points at (this document is not an authority on them), and the career narrative attached to it. No independent assessment of the plan exists, here or, as far as the corpus knows, anywhere.