Interview standards are getting ridiculous.
Recently, I had an interview with a startup where they gave a file with a multipart question and asked me to start coding. I approached the problem as a graph problem, and ultimately arrived at the correct solution. The interviewer mentioned she hadn't considered solving it with graphs and usually uses sets. We had a brief discussion, and I left feeling confident about my performance. Later, I found online resources that also modeled the solution as a graph problem, reinforcing my approach. Despite my optimism, I received a rejection from the recruiter. I reached out for feedback to understand areas for improvement, but unfortunately, they didn't provide any. I believe recruiters could offer more constructive feedback to help candidates learn and grow. While I understand they may avoid providing feedback to avoid potential arguments, I genuinely wanted to understand the reasons for my rejection. It makes me wonder whether minor issues are now less tolerated, or if the standards for these interviews have been raised significantly. The coding challenge was challenging, with multiple parts, and I managed to solve it with a working solution. I find myself questioning what these interviews are truly evaluating.
Bad interviewers hate it when candidate finds original ways to solve the problem. I saw this on both sides as an interviewee and the trainer of interviewers.
This, 100%. The problem given was just a gotcha. They are only looking for a specific answer. These types of interviewers are braindead. It's happened to all of us. Cheer up. You just got a bad draw.
Its not because it was a gotcha, Its because bad interviewers are too dumb to know other solutions since they just memorize their own/given solution.
These days they are interviewing multiple folks for the same position and even giving out multiple offers only to rescind later. It isnât about your interview performance
Recruiter: I donât care about you, your learning, or your growth. There are plenty of fish in the sea for me to worry about. I donât get paid to water dead plants or spend time writing feedback for someone who has been rejected. Moreover, if they start arguing, there is a potential for a lawsuit if I unknowingly write something inappropriate. If you are not selected, you are dead to me for a year. A recruiter canât do anything when the interviewer rejects you. Figure out what you lacked yourself and improve. Also, merely answering correctly doesnât mean youâll get hired. You have to communicate and navigate through the problem. ChatGPT might give you the exact solution, so why donât they hire it instead? (Iâm not a recruiter but just an engineer in a bad mood and in the same boat. Sorry if this is too harsh.)
Tech interviews largely evaluate luck, or labor. Architecture is a little better. Resume / behavioral can be a masterpiece in bullshit.
well snap is notorious with interview too
You are thinking way too highly of recruiters, but totally agree with you.
As a recruiter who still insists on giving feedback when I get it from hiring manager, 80% of the time, we get no replies, or very hateful replies (I get cussed at in writing on the regular). We canât win. Itâs pretty unusual for someone to say âI appreciate thatâ. âI can learn from thatâ. Or just even âthanksâ. I get accused or racism, sexism and ageism (for younger and older folks). I still do it in the off chance that I can help someone, but I completely get why most others donât.
Have you considered the possibility that the interviewer is a failure at their task? This is a difficult perspective while youâre in it, but becomes easier once youâre done and regain objectivity.
Thatâs the over qualification situation. I encountered that many times. Take it easy. They are not just good
Should have read their mind smh my head.