[kidintech]

> and are asked to solve it.

I think this is where our different opinions come from, while we agree on the other aspects.

In my personal experience, I have never felt that the hire/no-hire decision relied exclusively on my ability of solving the presented problem; I have passed interviews where I did not solve the LC-style problem optimally but I communicated clearly, picked up on hints, was aware of when I hit "walls" and provided working but less than ideal alternatives when I could not figure out the neat tricks.

Reading through the thread it seems that my experience is not universal, and the majority here have had less pleasant interviews, so I understand where you are coming from.

[bombela]

I have had all possible experiences. Sometimes I feel like genius and ace some leetcode with an almost novel solution. Sometimes I missunderstand the question/scope and mud myself into the hole of despair.

I have been rejected for one mediocre interview among many good ones. Or the other way around accepted even though I didn't perform well.

Sometimes the interviewer works with me. Sometimes against me. Sometimes a war story impresseses positively, sometimes raises suspicions.

At this point it feels like gambling.

I have also ran almost 400 interviews on the other side over the years, and to me it seems quite clear when somebody cannot write code at all. I like to think I am not biased. But who knows.

[johnnyanmac]

>Reading through the thread it seems that my experience is not universal, and the majority here have had less pleasant interviews, so I understand where you are coming from.

it changes immensely based on the job market. I've defintiely tanked some inerviews hard, stumbling on softball questions that shoulda been a bullet point. But I get pretty far or even gotten offers.

The last 12-18 months though? I've had interviews that felt like a dream but got zero follow up to. Been ghosted after seemingly final rounds where I spent 5+ hours on technical tests. It's not even enough to "understand the problem and communicate steps". You gotta be flawless, and you still might be cut compared to 3 years ago where a "C" performance could still land multiple offers as long as your experience made up for the quiz questions.

[CoastalCoder]

> it changes immensely based on the job market.

I dodged the .com bust because I worked for the U.S. DoD at the time.

But I got laid off for the first time during last year's "15% bloodbath".

If I compare my current job search vs. all of my job searches in the past:

(1) As parent comment said, the bar seems to be much higher. I've thought that I did really well on some interviews, only to not get an offer.

(2) Some interview processes are way more rigorous. For a DevTech role within nVidia, I had 12 interviews + 2 take-home problems. (BTW, the take home problems were incredibly fun. Well done nVidia!)

(3) I've finally accepted a job offer from a large, established tech company, and the pre-onboarding process is amazingly slow. I accepted the offer a month ago and still don't have a start date. In a better job market either (a) they'd probably work harder to be good about this stuff, or (b) I'd just take a different job because of the delay.

[CoastalCoder]

I forgot to mention another:

(4) Ghosting candidates seems common now. I'd never experienced it before now.

[ryandrake]

> (2) Some interview processes are way more rigorous. For a DevTech role within nVidia, I had 12 interviews + 2 take-home problems. (BTW, the take home problems were incredibly fun. Well done nVidia!)

That's ridiculous, tho.

Did they really not have enough information on the 11th interview to know whether or not they wanted to hire you?

[CoastalCoder]

That was my take as well :)

FWIW, the take-home problems were the most fun I've had in front of a computer for a long time.

That made up a bit for the Marathon of interviews.