> Anyone who is doing this, you're destroying trust and making life hard for the rest of us.
Sadly, they don't care.
This is why we can't have nice things.
Sadly, they don't care.
This is why we can't have nice things.
"You really should have used the enhanced for loop for that .." or "You really should have used a Lambda there" etc.
After years of tech screens like this over the course of my coding career I can't say Im not enjoying a little schadenfreude over this.
That sounds way more professional than any interviewing process I've gone through in the industry /hj.
My cover letter contains a standard phrase about "references available on request".
No one requested them.
I'm old, and have seen plenty of rejection, even though I'm "the real deal." But that kind of behavior has been used as an excuse for ignoring me. The icing on the cake, was when I was told that "I probably faked" my portfolio.
At that point, I realized that I am radioactive, and might as well just give up.
That makes me feel better about not being able to.
For what it's worth, I think Chris Marshall looks like a great developer and a professional I aspire to emulate. However, a lot of companies do make decisions based on metrics, keyword searches, and standardized tests like leetcode (aka stuff that misses out on the human element), so it makes sense to try and balance both if one hasn't done so already.
There's no hope for me either; I'm not a "good cultural fit" most of the time.
I agree with your last sentence, although I would word it a little differently. :)
In fact, my last job was at a place where the salesman told me to not fix a bug I found until a customer ran into that bug so that "they'll remember why they need us." I was appalled.
I'm glad there are more programmers like me out there though. Thank you. :)
It's just the way things are. Shrug it off. Don't take it personally. Move on.
I followed up with a letter to the CEO with description of the event and proof of my credentials. No idea what happened to the interviewer, nor do I care.
I imagine these shell-game interview tricks work really well at large companies where the HR screen is considered to be perfect and thus managers rejecting numerous candidates at the interview layer will be penalized in some manner. "Look, Polly on the Cloud-X-AI team accepted 80% of applicants that reached the interview phase - why is your team accepting just 20%? Is this a culture fit issue that we'll need to intervene on?"
Ended up not continuing the interview, as giving out very sensitive information like candies to companies on the first interviews is not a good idea at all.