[ossa-ma]

Perfectly encapsulates the state of the job market. Interviewing is genuinely a hellscape at this point and I've experienced many interviews where there was a complete breakdown of etiquette/guidelines and good faith.

One was so bad I had to write about it: https://ossama.is/writing/betrayed

[xlii]

Geez. Good one. Was in something similar lately. 10 weeks wasted and a shittiest feedback ever. These companies should be legally required to pay candidates for gauntlets they put them through.

[IshKebab]

Once I got really detailed feedback from an interview for a job I didn't get. It really took me by surprise! I didn't even have to ask.

It was quite interesting too because the things they'd inferred about me - stuff that I had understood or not understood - were just plain wrong. I didn't get everything right, but some bits I did understand fine, they thought I didn't.

I'm not sure what to take from that, other than that it's not about knowing stuff, it's about convincing someone else that you know stuff.

Also I'm about to do a hardcore leetcode interview. Wish me luck. (I'm probably going to fail; I'm pretty great at programming but only average at leetcode.)

[xlii]

Fingers crossed.

One thing to keep in mind is that leetcode is testing (surprise) social anxiety. You can be a great engineer, terrific peer to have in the time when crisis hits but still fail at leetcode problem because someone is watching.

[ossa-ma]

The lack of feedback is the worst part and is increasingly more common. Zero respect for the candidates time investment and propagates a terrible culture.

[whatever1]

Most of big-CO legal teams do not allow for feedback to be communicated to the candidates. They are afraid the candidates will sue base on that. That is not new.

[_DeadFred_]

Our entire system is getting so bogged down by things like this that it is ceasing to function. Lots of things that make sense individually but are breaking the previous social contract, or removing the grease that made things work.

[joquarky]

Systems without slack are brittle.

[lurking_swe]

They could at least allow hiring teams to send out a feedback email that highlights what the candidate did WELL, at a high level. This way the candidate gets some meaningful signal, while the company avoids the legal gray area of admitting why they rejected them. Just add a disclaimer like “unfortunately company policy prohibits us from explicitly mentioning why we chose another candidate.”

But you’d need to actually care to take something like that into consideration so… ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[whatever1]

Have you ever talked to a lawyer? The only thing that they keep repeating is "shut your mouth".

[randomNumber7]

Which is the right advise when you live in the current society.

[Otterly99]

Some jobs that I interviewed replied with an automated email saying that, if I wanted, I could ask for feedback. I always did and none of them replied... This somehow feels even more insulting.

[gombosg]

I'm sorry for your experience, but loved the painting at the end... :)

[bigfishrunning]

The completely unrelated painting ;)

[quibono]

Sorry to hear that, here I was thinking that a blog like this could only be a good signal and a jumping-off point in an interview. Oh well

[givemeethekeys]

Solid rant, mate! And a great blog, too!

[tmoertel]

I'm sorry you had such a bad interviewing experience. You asked for feedback in your blog post, and since your blog doesn't allow comments, I hope you won't mind my responding here.

You wrote something that I think is untrue of most tech companies, so I'd like to discuss it:

> [As I and a friend spoke], I realised something: Three technical interviews went well, I was feeling confident going into the behavioural interview... This means that I'm heading into behavioural and HR contract stages with confidence in my performance thus far and my ability to excel at the role. And it means that I have the upper hand in salary and benefit negotiation. This is horrible for them. THEY NEED to shut me down and bring me down a few rungs before this step. And to edge me for 2 weeks (and counting...) after the supposed final round before I hear anything back.

I suspect that approximately 0% of top tech firms are trying to tank your interview as a comp-negotiating tactic. For most of these firms, the biggest problem is finding people they want to hire. To find qualified people, they need to measure what applicants, like you, can actually do. And they can't get a good measurement when they sabotage your performance. Further, if they decide to hire you, they need you to feel good about the company, not hate it because of how you were maltreated. They want you to say yes to their offer, not rage quit the hiring pipeline.

I'm not saying that there aren't bad companies or bad interviewers out there. Nor am I saying that you can't get into an interview where the other person is actually out to get you. It happens. Maybe it happened to you.

What I'm trying to say is that if your mental model of the hiring process is that the company is probably going to sabatage your end-game interviews, you're probably going to be wrong most of the time and make some bad decisions.

> What do you think? Was that a normal interview that I should have expected? I am in the wrong by posting this? Should I nuke my blog?

Here's what I think. If you have a public blog, it's fair game at an interview. If you write mostly about data science stuff but you apply for a software engineering job, you ought to be prepared to explain the contrast. Understand that, for most top firms, hiring good people and getting them to stick is hard. Most employers will want some assurance that you are serious about the position you're applying for. If you send signals that you might want some other position, be prepared to get asked about those signals.

And you got asked about those signals:

> "How do we know we won't hire you and you'll try to transition to a data scientist?"

You ought to be prepared for questions like these. For example, most interviewers would probably be satisfied with an answer like these:

That's a great question. Data science is something I do for fun in my spare time. I don't want it to become my day job. I love software engineering and that's what I want to focus my career on.

Or:

That's an important question. Thanks for asking about it. I try to stay abreast of important trends in industry, and when AI and data became important in some of my past work, I put in some personal time to learn more about them. When I learn things, I often write about them on my blog to help me remember. My blog's just a learning tool, a memory aid, right? It's not a barometer of my career interests. If you want to know what my career interests are, let me be clear: I want to write software. Five years from now, I still want to be a software engineer.

> Should I nuke my blog?

I'd say no. But you should read your blog from the perspective of a firm that's considering you for a job and be prepared to explain away anything they might have concerns about.

That's just my two cents. If you find anything in my comment helpful, great. If not, feel free to dismiss everything I've written.

Best wishes on your job hunt.

[Teever]

> Here's what I think. If you have a public blog, it's fair game at an interview. If you write mostly about data science stuff but you apply for a software engineering job, you ought to be prepared to explain the contrast. Understand that, for most top firms, hiring good people and getting them to stick is hard. Most employers will want some assurance that you are serious about the position you're applying for. If you send signals that you might want some other position, be prepared to get asked about those signals.

This is kind of absurd. Could you imagine a registered nurse being asked to expain why they have a blog about astronomy and not nursing?

"What do you mean you don't write about dressing wounds in your spare time? How much could you really know about it then?"

"Managing Type 2 Diabetes isn't interesting enough for you to blog about? I'll have you know most of the patients htat you would be dealing with at this long term care facility have T2D. I'm skeptical that you'd be able to care for them."

Why do we allow this kind of BS in the tech industry? Whens the last time a nurse did a whiteboard interview?

[matheusmoreira]

> Could you imagine a registered nurse being asked to expain why they have a blog about astronomy and not nursing?

That hits pretty close to home... I'm a doctor who has a small blog about the implementation details of the lisp I made.

> Managing Type 2 Diabetes isn't interesting enough for you to blog about?

If someone asked me this point blank I think I'd laugh out loud. It's interesting enough for me to keep up with the latest evidence, thanks.

> Whens the last time a nurse did a whiteboard interview?

To be fair, healthcare professionals have some pretty gruelling training and difficult licensing examinations. Some amount of preselection is taking place. Nobody needs a license to write software.

[ossa-ma]

> mental model of the hiring process is that the company is probably going to sabatage your end-game interviews

I definitely agree and it is not a mental model that I carry into any interview, I have good intentions and I'm super friendly! This was only a tiny (disillusioned) post-interview reflection. I would say most interviews especially with engineers have gone well but there has absolutely been a vibe shift in the past year.

You can tell teams are a lot more risk averse when it comes to hiring. The promise of a fabled 10x engineer on the horizon paired with SWE automation devaluing existing talent has meant they will make you jump through 10 more loops and even then the decision is scrutinised. Understandably hiring is an expensive process (both successful and unsuccessful).

> Most employers will want some assurance that you are serious about the position you're applying for.

This is also a reflection of the job market. If it was balanced this notion would not exist. It's become a game of numbers, automated screening + AI has meant candidates need to send out 100s of application often with automation on their end too. On the other side every job likely receives 1000s of applications especially with stupid things like "L*nkedIn Easy Apply". Me personally, I would not apply for a role I am not committed to taking and I especially would not have gone through FOUR stages for fun, the first interview should be plenty screening for both parties!!! Alas.

I appreciate you taking the time to respond and thank you for your well wishes!

[tmoertel]

> the first interview should be plenty screening for both parties

Most good companies will interview you multiple times simply because they understand that individual interviewers can be biased. If five different people all say hire this guy, that's a much more trustworthy signal than if one person says the same thing.

[BeetleB]

> Here's what I think. If you have a public blog, it's fair game at an interview. If you write mostly about data science stuff but you apply for a software engineering job, you ought to be prepared to explain the contrast. Understand that, for most top firms, hiring good people and getting them to stick is hard. Most employers will want some assurance that you are serious about the position you're applying for. If you send signals that you might want some other position, be prepared to get asked about those signals.

Great! Let me trawl through all candidates' HN and social media comments, and ask why they spend more time talking about politics, movies, science fiction, than CRUD SW development. They need to justify it!

[tmoertel]

That's certainly one way of interpreting what I wrote.

My point was that potential employers are not blind to what you put out in the public space. If what you put out would cause a reasonable employer to have questions about your viability as candidate, you ought to be prepared for those questions. If you're lucky, they'll ask you those questions and you can dispell their concerns.

[ludicrousdispla]

>> For most of these firms, the biggest problem is finding people they want to hire.

While the firm wants to hire someone, the hiring pipeline/process is made up of individuals that have their own individual preferences on who should get hired. One person can certainly sabotage a candidate, and the further into the process the greater their incentive.