I recently interviewed at a well-known software company, was turned down, and have very mixed feelings about the entire situation. I was tasked with a total of 7 coding problems, 5 of which took place in an onsite interview that lasted around 5 hours. The problems were fun, the interviewers were great, and I'd ultimately rate the experience as the best hiring process I've been a part of. I personally think that these problems were exactly the type that tech companies need to be using as they were focused on creativity and your thought process as opposed to some "genius detector" brain teaser. I passed each problem with flying colors, except for the final one.

The point of this final exercise was for me to talk through my thought process. It was a debugging problem, and I eventually succeeded, but not without fumbling around for 15 minutes or so. The solution was a stereotypical example of being "right in front of you", but the nature of this exercise threw me off. When I look back, the analogy that makes the most sense to me is the boxing glove wall from the TV show, Wipeout [1]. It's a simple problem of getting from point A to point B with the twist of getting punched in the face, or the stomach, or the leg, at seemingly arbitrary intervals. I can see this as a good simulation for the reality of an engineering job (being faced with unplanned interruptions and having to bounce back from them) but, at the same time, I've never had to verbally talk someone through every keystroke and mouse movement that I make while debugging. I was frustrated with the exercise and with my inability to immediately diagnose the issue. The interviewer was amazing at getting me back into the right mindset after noticing I had fallen off the wagon each time, which showed me just how good of a manager they were. However, the more I realized how terrible I was doing, the worse I performed. I left with the unmistakable feeling of dread having set-up camp in my stomach. Despite arriving at the solution, I knew I had blown that exercise.

In the end, I was turned down. The official reason was that another candidate had accepted an offer for the position, but the hiring manager also told me that my programming skills were perceived as sub-par due to the final exercise. They said I'd be a great fit culturally, and that their team enjoyed the conversations we had, but my Python skills just weren't good enough. Being someone that really identifies with their abilities as a programmer, with Python being my language of choice, this verdict has kept me awake at night. I'll never know if the actual reason was due to the other candidate accepting or due to me being my own worst enemy during the final exercise.

The tech hiring process is one of the only times I've gotten 100% of the problems correct yet still failed. Half of me says that's bad, but another part of me understands in situations that require context like mine above. It's not the manager's job to babysit me when I psych myself out, or when I'm having a bad day. Engineers need to be reliable and stable enough to work efficiently on their own. Had I been alone, I would have found the solution much quicker. But you're almost never alone in a real work environment. Some of these exercises are measuring much more than just algorithmic competency.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XGmcQPCSG4