Hacker News Reader

Comment by shmatt | Hacker News Reader

if you've ever been through a Meta loop (and their method is to cast an extremely wide net, so chances are you have), you've seen how inefficient their loop can be for long term success

6-7 38* minute interviews, while the interviewee is trying to squeeze in showcasing their skills and experience, the interviewer is obsessed with figuring out a rigid set of pre-determined "signals"

Once these candidates actually start work, their success in the team is a complete coinflip

* 38 minutes = 45 minute scheduled - 2 minute intro - 5 minute saved for candidate questions at the end

View on HN

That wasn't my experience at all. I had a recruiter screen where she asked me some technical questions. I then had a longer discussion, then a code screen, then an arch-deep-dive. The entire process was very professional and EVERY person came off like they really wanted me to succeed. (Sure it's an act but it's a very helpful act when you're in the hot seat)

My intervews were in 20202/2021. Perhaps things have changed?

You had interviews scheduled longer than 45 minutes?

2020/2021 might as well be ancient history in tech terms. Your experience does not reflect the current status quo at all.

This seems a bit ridiculous, that’s only 5-6 years ago. Things change, but the mechanisms and culture isn’t entirely different.

Back in 2020, $META was desperate to hire. Nowadays the tide has turned and interview process shifted accordingly. They are super picky now, even for those who nail every stage of the interview, folks are still routinely passed over.

Market was so hot SNL did a skit where Meta just started sending paychecks to people as a recruiting tactic.

That SNL skit never happened, but the market was so hot it could have.

Remind me, was there a major event 5-6 years ago?

I interviewed in the past 2 years and my experience matches the parent. Very professional and the interviewers were great to talk to. Same with Google.

If it was the exuberant period of overhiring from around that time, then you're talking about a different company who interviewed you back then

The recruiting process has barely changed since then.

My experience as well, both at Google and Meta. Very positive and well-organized. I also got feedback from the recruiter on each interviews.

I had an interview in 2024 and my interviewer was CLEARLY doing other stuff during the interview. So a very different experience.

Things have changed. I worked with a very senior and professional recruiter at FB during that time. While things didn't work out then, someone else reached maybe a year and a half ago for a fairly similar role -- massive difference, strictly a disposable drone style process and barely a conversation. I chose to not even start the process.

A sample size of one but many anecdotes together can make a trend.

It was my experience as well in Dec 2025

So let me ask this. What is the perfect mix of inerviews and durations?

If you ask my blue collar friends, the answer is one and however long it takes to drink three beers.

If you ask any married person, the onboarding process (courtship) may last YEARS and consist of many interviews (dates).

As an EM, ive always struggled with this one. Im about to invest some serious coin and brainspace for you, so I tended towards a max of 3-6 total hours and a takehome assignment.

As an IC, I preferred short and sweet. Heres my portfolio (github), heres my resume. Lets make this work. Maybe 1-2 hours; its not like we're getting married.

The happy place has to be in there somewhere. Whats your take?

I’ve never worked at big tech but the usual interview process I’ve seen is one initial phone call to check both sides are on the same page and it’s worth scheduling an interview. Then a technical interview, sometimes a take home task, then a non technical interview with management. There’s no reason you need longer than that.

The "usual" process in big tech is a recruiter call, 1-2 technical screening calls (sometimes an EM call), then the main series of 3-6 domain knowledge interviews are done over 1-2 days.

The latter are pretty grueling, especially when conducted on-site. Apple recommends you show up 1-2 hours ahead so you have enough time to get through security, for example.

That might be fine if they are offering incredible pay and conditions at a highly desirable company. But you get so many mid tier companies looking at Apple and Google and replicating their process without the pay or reason to put up with that process.

I just eject from the interview process when I hear it's going to be so many rounds because I know there will be another company that's just as good that will get it done with less.

I had a 6 interview + take home ( which realistically took 2 days because I intensively studied for it ) loop.

Didn’t get the job. Got the vibe they were full of crap anyway. The salary range was never given. The business model, extremely easy to replicate.

The job I’m at now had a single 30 minute chat. Verbal offer 2 days later. And my co workers and boss are awesome.

Most of the best places I've worked have had the least process.

Every single crew member of the Endurance was selected based on Shackleton's vibes on them, sometimes before they even said anything. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Trans-Antarctic_Exped...

What does a pilot or doctor or cop do in terms of interviews, take homes etc.?

> doctor

Rigorous formal education, multiple rigorous exams, then years of shadowing and training. I went through this process, and tech interviews are a breeze by comparison.

I think he meant - what's the interview process for a doctor while switching jobs.

That's presumably what he meant but the response is highly relevant nonetheless. Comparing credentialed and noncredentialed professions is apples to oranges here because the credentialed professions effectively consist of pools of prescreened candidates. Among those, MDs in particular have an absolutely grueling process before they can get started. Imagine if your surgeon (versus backend dev) was proud of being self taught.

Pilots and doctors are exhaustively certified for a very narrow set of work. A cop gets a title, to perform a job that's identical in every part of the country.

Software development is neither exhaustively certified, nor narrow, nor perfectly transposable.

Developers want a 15 minutes interview, but also scream "Would you ask a builder if he has experience with blue hammers specifically?" when they get denied an interview because they do not have experience with the exact tech stack of a company.

Because that's how pilots and doctors work. They not only need to have experience with a blue hammer specifically, but it needs to be exact same make and model.

Imagine if a GP claimed to be neurosurgeon because they cured a headache. Developers get to call themselves fullstack the day they modify an API route.

My doctor probably thinks we software developers do a very narrow job. And she is kind of right, we always turn up with those back problems from sitting too much, or RSI or whatever. While doctors have all those medical specializations and different roles and employers.

While I cannot respond as a doctor, I can respond as an EMT. Totally different. But heres the deal.

The person who is the most important to you on the worst day of your life is the emt. The interview was literally "do you have a drivers license, and are you grossed out by stuff?" The rest you learned on the job.

Weird how doctors are vetted but prehospital folk are not.

edit yes there is training, but it happens after hire

The person who makes the ball bearing in the ambulance is also super important. They are paid leas because more people can do it.

The reason why EMT have such hiring practices are because many people can do the job, and there are many willing to do it.

It’s not weird if you think of in market terms.

Pilot at a major airline here: 1.5 hours of interviews with two people (recruiter and another pilot). Technical and HR-style questions, a personality test, no other homework.

Blood test, background check including all prior training records that are reported to the FAA.

Not a lot of work for the candidate in the interview, but it's easy to fail one too many training events or accumulate a violation and become radioactive.

Thanks!

Doctors are continually interviewed every time a patient gets pissed and sues them or files a board complaint. If there's any fault they're (very publicly) assigned remedial training or put on a PIP. They're also in incredibly high demand, so its often the doctor interviewing the practice.

If the interview is for becoming a partner at a practice, it's a two way courtship that's more reminiscent of other businesses looking for a co-owner.

Doctors also tend to hear about each other. Even in decent sized metro areas, they can often know who to avoid.

(This process isn't perfect, but it's still way different than for software.)

At my last job we generally had 3 interviews beyond the initial screening. One was a coding challenge (1 hour with 45 really working on the challenge), one was an architecture discussion, and one was more of a culture fit and similar with the hiring manager.

It worked very well for us, I was a bit surprised with some of the red flags that showed up that I wouldn't have expected to be caught in the hiring rounds done at previous jobs.

The short interview time helps keeping the interview process focused on high signal questions/discussions. That is better than a 1h where 1/3 of the process is a bunch of soft balls.

What I don’t like about them is how “dry” and mechanical the interview feels

I believe they optimize for fairness and consistency. They interview a huge number of people from very different backgrounds so they need a standardized process. It's not perfect but I can understand the logic. And there's team matching phase if the candidate pass the interview, it's not a random allocation.

Last time I talked them they also wanted an NDA just to interview, which was just insulting and dumb so I kept my existing big tech job instead

This was exactly my experience too. The interviewer seemed more focused on checking boxes on the grading rubric than actually understanding the design discussion. They barely engaged with alternative approaches.

The interviewer was also very hard for me to understand, which made the interview harder than it should have been.

I am ESL too, so this is not about someone’s background. The problem is communication in an interview where both sides need to understand each other clearly.

From what I have seen on Blind, others have had similar experiences.

What is your point exactly lol. You'd prefer longer interviews? More, less?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com