The interview process was rather elongated and didn't really make a lot of sense. For example I was asked to spend 2-4 hours on a take home task but then other than this being reviewed on their side I got no further feedback or discussion on this task that I'd spent time build some context on. The following round was then an architecture interview on a variety of hypothetical questions with scenarios and contexts that weren't fully explained and then I was marked down because I tried to better understand the context of those scenarios to make the right decisions. It seems like they want people who just make decisions rather than the right decisions. Directly after the architecture interview was a live coding exercise. In this exercise I was thrown a variety of exercises that didn't match what would be required of a software developer for this role on a day to day basis. With the exception of the first exercise, which was an SQL test, and the last, because we ran out of time, I did complete at least one exercise but I then received feedback that I was not able to filter an item out of a list. I also discussed the interview process with the engineer who was doing the live coding exercises and he seemed to agree with me that it was pointless to do both the take home task as well as the live coding exercises and that it should be one or the other. The perception I got from the engineer is that he was powerless to change this process even though he disagreed with it.

After a standard initial phone screen, take home challenge was not graded in a logical way. When I pointed out this fact, there was no reconsideration. At best, arbitrary and at worst, willfully wrong assessment process. Otherwise there were smooth and professional personnel. Feedback that indicated the issue only came after a follow up request and the decision was not further clarified or reviewed. The “issue” did not exist though!