Ask HN: How are your interviewers being rude to you?
I've had people just be not nice to the point of rudeness, people driving while interviewing, people walking on treadmills out of breath, etc.
- By refusing to disclose salary range and insisting I should go through the process before they can tell me. They don't get an interview.
- By trying paint their company as a startup despite over a billion dollars in investor money or, in one case, being publicly traded. Used to justify below market rate salary.
- By claiming role is fully remote and then slashing salary range at the very end of the process "if you want to work remotely".
- By offering salary range reduced by 40-70% if you are not in US. Doesn't matter that cost of living in Canada or western Europe is not lower. They are paying for the value I'm bringing, so my location should only matter for tax and timezone purposes.
As for situations you described only once I've had someone join the call while driving - 2nd interviewer. I made a joke about the purpose of the whole process for them to have one more employee not one less because he's driving distracted, suggested we should reschedule when everyone can safely fully focus on the interview. They apologized, rescheduled and then offered me salary of 45% of the lower end of the initial range, because while I was "more than qualified for the role they had a multiplier for Canada that applied here".
> You would need around 7,858.14$ (7,254.94Fr.) in Geneva to maintain the same standard of life that you can have with 8,300.00$ in San Francisco, CA (assuming you rent in both cities).
Although other countries/cities in Europe are cheaper than this, you should know that Switzerland has extremely low income tax, compared to others.
It doesn't matter if they tell me what the salary range is or confirm my expectations are within their salary range for that role - I just want to know upfront before everyone involved wastes their time.
Agreed if I'm looking for a job. If companies are reaching out to me when I'm not looking it's up to them to show me there is some upside to jumping ship, other than default buzzword package. Stonewalling any attempts to confirm an agreement is even remotely possible is a dealbreaker for me in that situation.
Sure feel sorry for the next-gen kids that will have to put up with 8-10 interviews (at a single company, for a single role) or more just to land a job.
Maybe we should blame how hard it is to fire people?
I was brought in, I mined the front of house staff. Its always good to see how they are feeling. Plus if you are nice to them, you get the good biscuits. They looked fine, until they started talking about the CEO/boss. They then looked stressed.
The interview started started a bit odd, the first person that interviewd me was nice, but looked at my CV and said: "well youre a linux guy like me, but they really want a windows guy" I thought it was a bit odd as the job spec was mostly linux hooked to AD (which was a dark art at the time, one I had mastered.)
Interviewer one went out and brought in the "head of engineering/systems/something".
I was treated to four sneering people. The "Header" started off with "oh you can't do windows can you?" I replied that I can hold my own(insert story about AD migration) This shut him up a bit, and made him more hostile. His acolytes (think crabbe and goyle plus two extras)
The interview reached a natural end. I was then told to go out and get lunch, and come back for more interviews. I leave my stuff there and go out for lunch, and come back at the ascribed time.
I walk through the door to where stuff was, I can here a stage whisper "OH my god, he's come back, whats he doing here? No you tell him to go."
Neeedless to say I did(Edit did not) get the job.
I wrote a message to the recruiter explaining what happened, and that I expect grownups to tell me to my fucking face that they've made a mistake.
Using TDD takes longer during an interview, so I didn't get as far into the problem as what I think the interviewer was expecting. I assume people that didn't use TDD performed better because they were able to get farther in the problem.
I didn't get an offer. I'm not sure if it's because of the TDD issue, but I can't think of anything else that could have contributed to the outcome. I sent my feedback to the recruiter after I was notified I didn't get an offer, and I asked for any feedback, but never heard anything.
Did a live coding and they said something along the lines of being one of the fastest to complete it and scheduled another call. So far so good.
Follow up call with some higher up on "culture". The guy seemed like a parody human, reminded me of PC Principal, 'out here crushin it bra on the daily', that type. Except he wasn't some young out of college bro, but some 40ish guy in a shirt and tie. He really spoke at me the whole time, I don't remember saying much. Maybe he saw my disdain, maybe I rolled my eyes, I don't remember.
About 20 mins after that call I got a rejection email. Very odd experience, but I assume I dodged a bullet.
If so you were expected to interrupt him.
Yeah, sounds like “not a culture fit”. I wouldn’t have been, either.
Personally I think it is a lame tactic and that there are better ways to learn how a person adapts to a confusing social interaction.
See 'stress interview'. [0][1][2] (It's discouraging to see that walk out didn't make the cut for the advice list of either [0] or [1].)
> Personally I think it is a lame tactic and that there are better ways to learn how a person adapts to a confusing social interaction.
One could argue this discriminates against applicants with social disabilities.
[0] https://www.interview-skills.co.uk/free-information/intervie...
[1] https://www.topinterview.co.uk/interview-advice/what-is-a-st...
[2] https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20190201-the-stress-int...
You get asked to sit in a room for a "couple of minutes". Ends up being more like 30.
You get there, the people you're supposed to talk to "aren't available", they have some other random underlings talk to to keep you busy.
You're talking to them, they act bored or distracted. They play with their phones, take calls.
They whiteboard you clearly without any preparation. Sometimes pulling a problem more or less out of their ass (logically incoherent and/or mathematically intractable).
They give you lengthy take-home problems, which would clearly take 4x as long to do in an actual work environment. And surprise, they don't set up the environment right, or the data you're supposed to go fetch just isn't there anymore (or has changed), or the requirements are just plain incoherent.
Oh and then they ghost you.
Though I'd still prefer that to the ones that told me that my more than a decade of professional experience isn't useful/valid because my parts of the industry "chose the wrong programming languages". I particularly loved the hypocrisy of getting that criticism from a company trying to win more companies like the ones I've worked for to their Cloud platforms. It seemed pretty obvious why they were having difficulty winning some of them over to their platform if they absolutely just hated the languages they worked with.
The others are just not being professional. Wearing pajamas or not paying attention or acting incredibly disinterested. It's really terrible.
Name & shame
Microsoft but they eventually got back to me 2 months later. Still disrespectful in my opinion
Hashicorp
What I try to give is a three parter simple string parsing manipulation question where you build on each successive part as well as providing both valid and invalid inputs for them to use as test cases. It shows organizational skills and the ability to break down problems into reusable parts as well as the super basics of string parsing. I think being able to do that much under time pressure shows the learned qualities of a programmer since most will go with what's been ingrained into them by way of habit.
I can understand brain teasers being a poor measure of ability but I'm super on board for online whiteboarding when done properly. 45 minutes, no muss, no fuss. No 6 hours on a weekend to make something. No impenetrable question that requires tricks you don't need for day to day work that you can later look up.
I hate algo/whiteboarding myself, especially complex ones, but I think there's some value in doing some minimal in person fizz-buzzing, especially if you work for a very popular company. The amount of people who can talk through interviews all day long but can't code is too high not to at least attempt to filter them out.
What I do is give a very simple question, and make it clear that its not a "gotcha" question and that I just want to talk through with them how they'd solve it, to at least filter out the "deer in headlights" candidates. No one walked out of that to this day.
Writing a java sort function on a white board? Much less so.
They’re all bad options in some way, but at least takehomes simulate how most people actually approach a project, rather than sitting there trying to do something while someone stares at you. Some of us really, really hate that.
When I'm asking you a technical question, I'm looking at the code you're writing, not you. The camera is only on to make sure you're not lip synching or something. The layout of your code and the logic that went into it is more important than your mannerisms.
I refuse takehomes on principle because I've had enough bad experiences with poor reviewers so I'll never give one out.
Ideally? Not to assume my resume/education experience is a lie and to instead assume that I've done enough technical work by this point to merit respect that I don't need to prove some "technical merit" via any sort of whiteboarding exercise that is neither anything like day-to-day technical work nor it is it much more than time wasting busy work to give interviewers plenty of room for excuses on why they don't like people.
But, I'm in a minority opinion in general that I'd rather see the industry mature and if it needs to build a standardized test like the MCAT or the Bar Exam or PE certification to stop asking trivia questions in interviews it should just build a standardized test and stop wasting everyone's time.
Personally, I wouldn’t suffer, but I think as an industry we're unique in this way and it’s kind of overall maybe slightly better than not.
Whether or not that's true, is it really important? I guess it depends on your perspective. Do you think the industry exists to provide job opportunities, or to solve real business problems?
Admittedly it's not like a super fair comparison because we're still in the a very nascent phase of software as an industry, but I think as a concept the question still poses merit. Maybe when the industry matures more we'll finally establish a bar, but in the meanwhile I think most of the money people feel that there's just too much work to do for that to happen.
Personally, I don't really know what's the optimal way to do things. Mainly my point is that it's interesting that we even exist. Like, we are one of the only "professionals" who don't have any standards to adhere... and this is precisely why interviews are so hard in our field. Sometimes they're asinine, as has been discussed here.
(FWIW I try really hard to be a good interviewer and to give the candidate a pleasant experience and to design everything so they feel fairly judged and I get good signal)
I don't know if that is something that software could use, but it certainly is a known option, and might help. In some ways software already has bespoke versions of those career paths, but there's no standardization from company to company and that's part of what makes interviewing hard because even career paths mean different things to different companies.
But I’m not giving them because I think people are lying. I can tell if people are lying about their experience in the first interview. The assignment part of the interview is to assess the quality of their work. Some people do awesome work straight out of school, and some have been doing awful work for 20 years.
We do have standardized testing: certs. But they're of limited usefulness in determining someone's job performance.
Sure, a resume isn't about "job performance" but how much do you distrust the labor market in your own industry that you think people can do awful work for 20 years and still remain meaningfully employed enough to have resume experience across all 20 of those years?
I understand where you are coming from and appreciate it is a common attitude in this industry, I just think it is a wild attitude, and an attitude related directly to the immaturity of our industry that everyone assumes the labor market is inefficient and doesn't reflect "quality"/"performance".
No, I’m saying that resumes simply don’t convey quality of work. They convey the duration of work and who it was for.
Duration isn’t a proxy for quality. Beyond the first couple years of experience, I don’t think I’ve seen much of a reliable pattern between experience and ability.
I can’t really look at some random project at some random company on a resume and tell you whether participation in that project amounted to brilliant engineering work, or whether it was changing ‘if’ statements three times a week in a legacy system.
> how much do you distrust the labor market in your own industry that you think people can do awful work for 20 years and still remain meaningfully employed enough to have resume experience across all 20 of those years?
I’ve been on the wrong end of hiring mistakes where that was exactly the situation.
There are definitely certain types of jobs that are “known for being cushy” in this industry.
Although, that’s nothing unique to tech. People coast in tons of white-collar jobs.
I think the problem here is the company never knows if it is looking for a specific skillset or not, and "how specific" to hire. Then using that as a crutch to avoid asking hard questions of itself if it can hire-to-train.
Most specific skillsets can be trained with a broad enough education. That's what most other industries/career paths rely on. Software uses the excuse that technologies move "too quickly" to avoid hiring to train or hiring generalists that would be fine with a specific skillset if given the right guidance/time/budget.
> I would be willing to bet that you have at least one thing on your resume that is embellished ever so slightly.
I don't. Why would I?
This is exactly what I'm complaining about. As an industry we've taken a "guilty until proven innocent" mentality and interviews aren't about respect but presuming lies and always about "ferreting out" the liars. It's awful and just about no other industry works that way in hiring decisions.
I've had interviews find lies that a recruiter edited into my resume, but that's a problem with the industry's relationship with bad recruiters and doesn't seem a good reason to call me a liar, when I'm not the one doing that.
Unfortunately, I have interviewed many candidates who have excellent resume, relevant experience, but who can't write basic string manipulation code which does not even require any advanced algorithms or data structures.
I think a lot of it gets down to what are we actually testing for here?
Sure, which is why we have multiple interviews and not just one.
> or were too focused on trying to solve for "traps" in the interview they stumbled over basics
I disagree to an extent. Its not a "here is the problem, you have N minutes, go". I work with the candidate - guiding them, explaining, understanding their rationale.
> or had to do so much advanced string manipulation that got trapped in trying to re-simplify their concerns from real world practical work (forest) to "basic string manipulation" (trees).
I am talking about simple string manipulation which can be done with just loops.
> I think a lot of it gets down to what are we actually testing for here?
That they can code independently, think about the problem, reason about the potential edge cases and communicate their rationale. Its not a binary decision, but how they are overall.
You are testing that they can code independently by forcing them to code in a group setting? "Guiding them, explaining, understanding their rationale" is about the exact opposite of testing for "can they code independently". Not to mention all the usual issues that whiteboard "coding" resembles real world coding not at all.
Especially if you are just talking simple string manipulation which can be done with just loops; either you are asking the candidate to reinvent the wheel of a library function they use all the time and should never write by hand in a real world codebase or your example is contrived in other ways in which the real answer is way more complicated due to performance issues (because low level string manipulation likely is a performance issue).
This is exactly where it becomes a trap, too: in a real world application I'd need to evaluate any and every string manipulation written by hand to test it for performance issues and determine the appropriate string manipulation tools for the job. In C# today that includes knowing when to use a StringBuilder versus knowing a lot of gory details of Span<T> and String.Create and a deep rabbit hole of memory management issues (.NET strings are immutable, so this pretty much accounts for all real world string manipulation in .NET today that it is never "just" string manipulation). Other languages have related memory management concerns, but different dialects and mental overhead. Also, it's 2021 and no one in the real world should be doing any string manipulation at all without accounting for Unicode, so in a real world application you need to make sure you are using your platform's correct APIs for "rune" manipulation rather than raw codepoint manipulation for Unicode safety.
In a whiteboard exercise you are probably going to tell me "don't worry about that" or "just keep it simple", but that's the biggest "reasoning" behind potential edge cases and after a number of years of professional work I can't shut off that firehose of practical concerns and it will take me a while to get to the "simple exercise" because my brain has lots of in-grained habits at this point and you are asking for "coding insight" like the real world, but in no way like an actual practical programming issue and the real programming issues still get in the way because I "know too much" at this point to react well in any "simple" problem.
The other trap here is "soft-skills", again deeply contrary to "coding independently": while "coding" you want the candidate to express themselves out loud and communicate their rationale. While many of the pop psychology ideas of "right brain, left brain" are mostly wrong (or at least wildly over-generalized), the basic idea applies here well: you are asking candidates to light up two very different sections of their brain all at once. Maybe for someone far more used to pair programming that's a bit like walking and chewing bubble gum at the same time, but for someone used to "coding independently" (as you are asking to test) that's a lot more like those stupid pat your head and rub your tummy at the same time "tests". You can do it, it takes a lot more energy and conscious thought, and it doesn't "feel natural" for "coding independently" at all. I don't know about anyone else, but I find that not just incredibly draining but a migraine trigger and it is very hard for me not to end nearly every interview with a nasty migraine.
> think about the problem, reason about the potential edge cases
You'd test for these better with creative problem solving exercises. Everyone likes to make fun of those "silly Microsoft-style questions" like "describe all the functions of Vending machine to me like I've never used one" or "how many spherical elephants can you fly in a Boeing if the Boeing were made out of Legos you had to assemble from scratch but assume the fully assembled plane could still fly for some reason" or silly things like that, but they actually do a stronger job of exploring someone's creative problem solving skillset than any equivalent "coding" exercise, if the person truly has never encountered that specific problem example before (which is the hard part Microsoft found that people started to collect them and prep for them).
That's what I mean by "what are we actually testing for here?" If we are testing for creative problem solving, coding is rarely the best way to test for that. (Especially coding for "simple" things like string manipulation. That may be a domain someone has explored to considerable depths, and come out the other side where that is no longer a creative problem solving exercise but a boring, practical "construction" project with existing boring blueprints. Most algorithms questions test if a candidate can follow blueprints, not if they can problem solve.)
> communicate their rationale
Here's where we see the true crux of my question "what are we actually testing for here?"
If we are testing for soft-skills, test for soft-skills. "Coding" isn't a great time to test people used to "coding independently" for communication soft-skills (see above).
The HR world has centuries of knowledge on how to run soft-skills interviews (and how not to run them to avoid discrimination). "Coding" veers towards that "how not to run them" side because of that pat your head and rub your tummy effect. At best, it's not a great test of real world soft-skills performance. At worst, it's potentially discriminatory versus neuro-diversity.
The thing is they’re not. Sometimes we want to see code that runs and compiles. Sometimes people want to see how you think. Whiteboard interviews are designed to do the later, because coding is not thinking.
I think the whole whiteboard interview = bad phase of blog posts from thought leaders was half hot takes from people who didn’t like how they were evaluated in that dimension, and half actually companies trying to push products that they sell. I don’t however think the consensus among senior engineers ever really bought that. It was more nuanced, like a “yeah, it’s not the only thing we should do, but programming interviews with an IDE shouldn’t come at the permanent exclusion of whiteboard interviews altogether” sort of thing.
That’s exactly analogous to whiteboard interviews. You can feel however you want to feel, and no one will change your mind. The fact is, you never code on a whiteboard. You’re not testing ability.
I am not going to spend three hours of work, when I'd rather be doing something else, only to be fucking ghosted. (times by godknows how many companies.)
I got bought out by a FAANG and I am eternally grateful that I "only" had to do four interviews to keep my job. Rather than the real time coding horse shit.
A FAANG on the CV without preparing leetcode BS for months!
I had one of the guys I was managing in a startup get into the AI company that Google bought without leetcoding.
I was pretty jelly but still determined not to spend months on leetcoding, dealing with shitty big org politics, performance reviews and having to work from the office (it was still back in the days when people were free to work from the office). Without the cost of leetcoding I could probably tolerate it for a couple of years and resell myself as a Xers for the rest of my career. With leetcoding and the risk of failure, fuck that.
With that still to come, we as a company stopped working on the core business for two weeks and settled down for leetcode practice and mock interviews. We had the luxury of doing it all together and learning form each other in work hours. So it was a lot less stressful than it would have otherwise been.
In the UK it's illegal to buy a company and fire/rehire all the staff. The way they got round that was to say that if we didn't agree to waive our rights, we wouldn't get any money. The money we were offered as part of the share settlement was about half what we could expect if we went to court(ie 1/2 a years wage net). The main deal from the evil overlord was "join us and you'll be spaffed with cash"
turns out there are a lot of myths about being bought out, its nowhere near as glamorous as we've been lead to believe.
but yeah, I don't think I'd have ever really have applied, especially given the silly amount of prep one is supposed to do.
Was able to provide a working solution for all of them. One of the interviews I was unable to do the optimum solution, but discussed how I think it could be done better. No offer, heh.
I have been told that it's now mostly luck getting in. My lunch break person even told me that.
Interviewer was late 45 minutes. When he came he was angry that I was in the wrong place. It was a closed office, invitations only, I was guided by a front desk lady who knew what I came for. They rejected me, as they forgot to mention they need some fiber channel storage admin. I didn't even heard names of those things before, as stated earlier by phone. They called again few months later, said it was a mistake and that person left company. Proposed another meeting. I politely denied.
Went through quite long process (also used 2 days off for that) that was actually a lot of fun, to inform me at the end they have budget for 60% of what I asked for earlier. That was lower then my first job ever in IT. Few months later called again saying they raised the budget and can afford me now. Wasted another day off to be informed that new budget was around 65% of my asking...
Interviewer forced me to arrange a day off at old company to inform me they don't have the job (their client had budget cuts they were surprised with), in person. Then pretended it's not him while I waited in the hallway.
Details: My interviewer arranged a welcome day on my future-company on Monday, more than a week ahead. I was supposed to meet the team, do some internal trainings, get remote logins maybe. I took a full day off just for that and he knew about it. Came as arranged, office was empty, doors closed. Interviewer walked past me a few times without saying hi while I waited for almost an hour on an empty hallway. Then suddenly invited in, said they don't have that position due to lost client and we'll figure out what to do later on. It took 3 minutes. I already quit my old job. We tore our signed contract after a few weeks and pretended it never happened, but it took me several months to clean that mess up.
I had already passed the phone screen, the 2/3rd rounds, and did well enough on the on-site to warrant a final interview to see if I was to make the cut - I was told it would be focused on the technical presentation I prepared as part of the on-site.
The interview started off ok, just confirming the company I worked for and the industry I'm in. I had trusted the other interviewers at that company to be honest and ask questions in good faith and they all were for the most part. However, this specific interviewer used some leading questions in order to prove a point about how FinTech is far superior in complexity to the industry I worked in and I wouldn't be able to hang. We didn't talk much about my presentation.
Very rude for a guy who had only been there 4 months and didn't come from fintech himself. I'm bitter about it but ultimately I wouldn't have wanted to work for him anyway.
That seems like such an obvious thing to do I don’t think it needs stating; I’m surprised you even thought to bring it up.
Conversely, my best interviews (and 1:1s) have been with people who are fully present.
I had this happen, i had his resume up on my screen for the interview and i was taking notes and suddenly i got a message that there was some big production issue i had to help with, so yeah i couldn't focus on the interview. I still feel bad about that
I took part in a Facebook recruitment competition (this was many years ago when it was less obvious how evil they were going to be).
They gave us some data and some notional analytics task and your goal was to maximise a certain prediction metric. The catch was that they had errors/repetitions in the data such that you could exploit it to maximise the prediction score by methods largely unconnected to the notional analytics. This allowed some to get scores miles above accuracy reported in the literature, to the point where it wasn't physically possible to do that well. I'm still not convinced it wasn't an error on their part or that it wasn't an inside job.
I discovered this and basically made the claim that some of the other scores others were getting weren't possible, and in the process of chasing down what the "cheaters" were doing, they came clean with the "oh, it's part of the job to assume/find such problems in the data and exploit it". So then everyone changed their models to include this little hack and the competition continued on the remainder of the data after wasting most of our time.
but it left a really bad taste in my mouth. first of all, the metric is now meaningless in this case, so no, it's not an analysts job to exploit errors to maximise a meaningless metric. secondly, just do things in good faith: if you give me a data set and tell me it's a certain thing, I'm going to believe you. if it's dodgy or you're interested in OTHER things, then tell me so we can stop fucking around, because this isn't real life and I've got no idea what contrived thing it is you're looking for in this finite and time restricted exercise. if you want me to find some contrived thing, then at least tell me that's part of it.
gotchas where they're fucking with you or dishonest about what they're actually doing in the process are the worst. especially if they're actually incompetent, made a mistake and they're too proud to admit that fact.
When the interviewer demeans you by boasting about their company's/team's achievements while implying "why are you here?" (well, you've invited me, remember?)
anyone who ghosts after multiple interviews
I find it annoying when people start lecturing me about their hate of some tech.
I did some "open book" on site programing quiz, i looked up the syntax for else if in python and the guy goes "hmm do you really know python?" i switch between like 3 languages, so yeah ill double check syntax...
i need to think of more, i hate interviews. It feels like the smaller the company the worse the interview experience is. funny enough i think facebook was the most pleasant interview i did
The worst hiring though is when you are asked to take a code test and you can clearly see from the extent of the test that they want a POC for something. I was given a code test that was basically a complete MS paint. I did not do it and then the company complained about it. I did not even apply for the job in the first place. Some big companies…
It was one of the strangest and most dead-end discussions I've ever had.
Since it was the last interview and he was a manager, I was expecting a culture fit/soft skill interview but it was more whiteboarding. I was surprised but I went with it. I asked some clarifying questions and then I started walking through my solution on the whiteboard. After a few minutes I turned around to ask him a question and he was staring out the window day dreaming. I said "excuse me" and repeated my question. He gave me a brief answer and then turned to stare out the window again. He did this through the entire interview.
I was shocked. I understand that it was the end of the day but it was his choice to have the interview loop keep going. I had given them an entire day and he didn't even respect me enough to give me an hour of his attention.
I didn't get the job but I'm sure I dodged a bullet if that was what the management was like for that team.
Your “competitive” salary turned out to be $65k, after I’d become gotten all excited about the role? Owch.
You want to hear about my market research on the local employment market before you pitch a number? No: that’s your job.
You want a salary range from me despite you having a 10x better grasp on the responsibilities of the role than I do, which also happens to be secret info in the negotiation because you never came up with a written job spec? Well. You are now at the back of my priority list of potential future employers I’m talking to.
If you decide you want to hire me then, I’m sorry to tell say, the next move is for you to make me an offer. We can schedule another chat if you like but I’m just going to pitch why I’m the person for the job again, then wait for you to make me an offer.
No, you also don’t get to know anything about my current salary.
1) Acting surprised I wasn't going to do the coding exercise in Java, when Java wasn't on my resume
2) Not believing that JavaScript doesn't have some of the string functions that Java has
3) Ghosting instead of formally saying they aren't moving forward
edit:
From my working experience though, sometimes HR and recruiting are really in their own world and not indicative of the whole company. At a past job that was the most amazing place work, recruiting would do things like double booking people on multiple simultaneous interviews, sending meeting invites at night for the next morning, refusing to cancel interviews for candidates interviewing for jobs that were already filled "just in case" and other fun adventures we had to figure out how to try to navigate in the moment.
Consider it a good thing because you might have actually accepted a job there, and then you'd have wasted a ton of time and effort for nothing.
Even more surreal when I took the job, later decided it wasn't my cuppa, and had the exit interview conducted by this same person -- and having to sit there while she provided me absolutely false information about transitioning, asking me to sign a "hush" contract on my way out, and then later not providing final payroll until WAY after the state requirements. Eep.
Of course, the joke's on me, they IPO'ed recently and she probably has twice my net worth now. :) C'est la vie!
It was a 30 minutes video call, followed by a test to design a system, which took me around 8 hours to finish (I used sequence diagrams and detailed documentation).
After that it was a meet and greet interview for 45 minutes and I asked for another 30 minutes to ask questions and understand the expectations.
I received an offer few days later, 30% less of what I asked for! I immediately told the recruiter I lost my interest even when they increased the offer to be close to what I have asked for.
2 weeks later they come back 20% over what I asked for, had accepted another role by then and said “no, next time, just offer what’s asked”
one interviewer was watching their laptop and typing (slack?) and made almost no eye contact the entire time. it started with dead silence for a bit, then "what questions do you have for me". and that question was repeated 2 or 3 times after I finished with my reply, then it was just over.
another time, after the first 10 or so minutes of talking on the phone, the interviewer said "well I don't know if this department will open up, but you should try applying at company x or company y" and that was it. this was for a new department in the company - I assume they would not be interviewing if it was a long shot, and I was referred by an employee. pure waste of time.
a couple other similar stories I am forgetting at the moment, then the usual ghosting/late arrivals/condescension about education and work history.
In this case it does sound like they weren't actually paying attention to you, but FWIW, when I interview people I have a checklist of questions[0] and take notes on my laptop so I would be typing and at least glancing at the screen. On the other hand, it's obvious that that's what I'm doing, not least because I tell candidates so.
[0] Or at least topics that I want to make sure we cover.
"Thanks for the quick response, but I'd rather not move forward without hearing your salary requirements.
Having asked a few times and still not received an answer, we're going to move on in another direction."
for two hours the two interviewers basically took turns, one asking me specific things about my resume, while the other would make a show of how disinterested or bored they were. it was a bit comical to watch a 60-year old director enthusiastically check email, so I kind of picked up on this being one of those 'behavior tests'
after being hired and witnessing the same behavior from our actual clients whenever we hemmed or hawed about anything on our company's sales sheet, I asked one of the interviewers (who had become my director) and they said basically the idea was to filter out the people who would have soon become angry at their own customers
- being coy about pay. "lets hop on the phone!" "it will be competitive!" "well we're just about to get a big funding round and when we do..." "well first we'll need you to jump thru hoops A,B,C... and maybe after that we might tell you..."
- in general, wanting to tell me things in a call vs a quick concise async email
- in a call, they repeat things already conveyed on their website and in the job description, which I will already have read
- no job description/profile (though this can be overlooked sometimes if its truly a broad profile, effectively "smart people who ship, and are nice, and sane")
-"requiring" me to do coding tests or challenge projects despite me having mounds of public evidence that I'm a real programmer, and not my 1st rodeo
- compounding the above by having the gall to assume I'll gladly spend my valuable free time doing that for them, for 0 pay
- saying I can work remotely but NOT from my state (I'd be free to move to a different state and then be allowed to work from my home. what the---?)
- my pay will not be private, in the interests of "transparency" -- ok, lets go ahead and make sure every employee and shareholders total financial picture is public, in that same spirit, goose and the gander, etc. no thanks
- putting their end on speakerphone - notorious for cutting out speech sounds and worsening audio quality. forcing any part to have to say "what?" or ask to repeat is irritating and makes folks sound a little dumber than otherwise -- just say no, folks. we live in an age of crystal quality telephony audio if we simply choose to use it
could add dozens more. again, not sure I'd call any single one "rude", but definitely lots of folks out there who don't seem to think or care about their impact on others. curse of more life experience and care is you increasingly encounter bigger gaps between how things "should be" vs how they are?
Something I always specify in interviews: being an expert at something, for me, means that I could write a book about it.
So, I prefer to say "I am good at <this>", instead of saying "expert".
The problem is this leads to unclear skill appreciation!! Like, yes, I spent the last 5 years coding partial differential equations in parallel mainly using C. Would I call myself an expert in C? No. Never.
I am good at it? yes.
So why is this rude? Because, in case you have sense of honesty and/or the simple inability to call yourself an expert about everything, this can lead to discussion where you have to explain "oh ok, I am not an expert at numerical analysis and solving PDE's but still it was a big part of my last position...so I am probably more of an expert compared to the 22 year old guy that just came out of school who PRETENDS he is an expert at this".
---
The almost SYSTEMATICAL use of "C/C++" as if it's a thing.
No, sorry, a thousand times "NO", being a C developer is a thing, being a C++ developer is another thing. It's possible to be both, but it's FAR from being systematical.
It's as if we would see everywhere "Java/Javascript" -> see the heresy?
So this is not exactly "rude" but terribly annoying having to go into details when answering questions about "C/C++" in interviews: "so, well, I am a good C developer but I am just ok at C++ because, you know? C and C++ are not the same thing AT ALL?"...seeing the sense of confusion in their eyes at that moment is really distressing.
---
People from full-HR background trying to pretend they know something about the field because they know the words/keywords.
You know? Like, I am not a biologist, I know the word "DNA" but would I, in front of a biologist that I am recruiting for some reasons, pretend that I KNOW what DNA is? No, I wouldn't and I shouldn't. Actually, maybe a good idea could be: -> test the communication skills of somebody: "Explain to me what is <this>" (DNA, for instance, or anything else).
So, no, sorry it's not because you know the words "cloud" or "Python" or "server" that you are an expert and talk like you are one.
----
Companies/HR people/Business People trying to oversell the company, particularly going into the "we are so much a good-humane company". It's "rude" in the sense, that we all know that most of the time it's bullshit. And/or in any case, people claiming that are not the people you're gonna end up working with on a daily basis anyway.
----
Coding test for senior positions. I have more than 10 years of experience. Two master's degrees in Computer Science. And a PhD also in Computer Science.
So, Yes. I. Can. Code.
I also know that I am not "the best at coding". I am not trying to be the best at coding...because I am unable of doing so and also because...I am over 23? (or pick any age that would make sens to you)
----
Recruitment process that is solely composed of technical test or if you prefer, when the company is not actually recruiting a human being.
I mean, on a not too big company (below 200 people), doing really advanced stuff (way above the typical software engineering kind of work), one could expect a company would try to NOT ONLY get the matching skills but also the matching personality.
I went into the interview with a couple of red flags already. The main one is that the person at the recruiting company told me something like I should go in "with an open mind and calm", that they were very "harsh" and they used to do "very tough interviews" and that other interviewees had commented they didn't like it much.
Anyway, I went in.
I met with the Chief People Officer and the Head of Engineering, and yes, right from the start they were... I don't know, maybe they just had a somewhat impatient tone. Not too bad. But as we went on, they got increasingly so. They tended to cut me short on all the questions they asked. I know I sometimes do talk too much, so I just tried not to and that's it.
It was... a bit weird, but just that. It didn't feel that tough.
Then they asked about me having imparted some classes and trainings... "Maybe, 5, 6 people?"
me> Sometimes more, like 10 or 20. It depends.
them> Yeah, so then you feel a knot in your stomach, right?
me> Ah... no, not rea...
them> What are you, made of stone??
me> Well, no, but I've done it many times so I don't rea...
After this went on for maybe 30-40 minutes, they finally got enough of it and offered if there was anything I wanted to ask.
They hadn't really told me much at all about their project, technology... really about anything, expect for a very generic overview. So I did want to ask. I started with something I thought easy.
me> So, you mentioned this is a Java project; is it Spring based?
them> That's none of your business.
me> Sorry?
them> You don't need to know. You'll be working on the front so whatever.
me> Well, I would like to have a better overview of the project. Knowing the technologies may give me a better idea of the general state of the code...
them> THE CODE IS FINE. We wrote it and it's great code.
me> Yes, of course, sorry. I didn't mean it that as not being good, just get an idea of the age, the general structure...
I would have but didn't dare to ask much else. And I had lost all interest anyway. So we ended the interview after a few more minutes. I kindly said goodbye. The CPO was amiable enough to shake my hand -again, this was mid-2019- but the Head of Engineering didn't feel like doing that and simply remained seating looking at something or other on their phone.
This would have been weird enough. The next day I spoke to the person from the recruiting company. I told her, without going into details, that I felt they had been quite aggressive, even to the point of being rude. She laughed nervously and agreed that they could sometimes be "a bit abrupt". Anyway, I told her, I wasn't interested; I didn't think any good could come out of that. KTHXBAI and that's it, I thought.
But somehow, it seems they asked the recruiter for my number and, for whatever reason, she agreed and gave it to them. So about a couple of hours later, an unknown number calls and it's the Head of Engineering. They are... well, not cordial, but at least a tiny bit more agreeable than the day before. They ask what I think, about the project, the position, the offer...
me> Ah, sorry. I already told [recruiter] from [recruiting company]. After our interview yesterday, I don't think this is what I am looking for. The project seems nice but at this moment I'm not interest...
them> OH, YEAH?! Well, then just know that WE'RE NOT INTERESTED IN YOU EITHER!!
When I worked in an industrial office park, I could go out to my car to do a phone interview. When I was working downtown, where I didn't drive to work, there was pretty much nowhere to go that wouldn't involve some kind of background noise.
I just can't afford to take 4-5 days off each time someone thinks we might be a good match and needs a 30 minutes (which is always more). When I'm motivated to switch jobs I might talk to a few companies and all interactions are kind of short and in the middle of day. They seldom want to meet at 7 am or at 6 pm. Middle of the day? Sure, but we both understand it means finding a middle ground.