Why tech job interviews became such a nightmare

Scope of the “Nightmare”

• Many describe modern tech interviews as Kafkaesque: 5–6 rounds, long take-homes, weeks of silence, then roles being canceled or endlessly “on hold.”
• Entry-level and non-senior roles are singled out as especially bad: multi-stage funnels, unpaid projects, ghosting, and companies interviewing with no real intent to hire.
• Some senior folks now avoid interviewing altogether, preferring to stay put unless forced to move.

Comparison to Other High-Pay Professions

• Compared with banking/consulting: tech is seen as more skill-focused, others as more pedigree/network/“vibe” driven.
• Compared with medicine: medical training and exams are far harsher, but largely front-loaded; tech demands repeated grind (e.g., LeetCode) over an entire career.
• Some argue tech interviews are still easier overall; others emphasize the cumulative burden and incompatibility with family life.

LeetCode, Algorithms, and Gatekeeping

• Algorithm-heavy interviews are blamed on FAANG-style processes and industry “cargo culting.”
• Critics say they:
  • Disfavor experienced engineers with families who can’t grind for months.
  • Select for test-taking and memorization over real-world development and product thinking.
  • Are loosely correlated with on-the-job work, suffering from Goodhart’s law.
• Defenders argue:
  • They’re a more merit-based gate than elite degrees.
  • High-comp roles (e.g., >$150–250k) and huge applicant pools require stringent filtering.
• Take-home tests receive strong pushback: unpaid labor, frequent cheating, and weak predictive value; they often filter out honest or time-constrained top candidates.

Alternatives and Process Design

• Proposed better signals:
  • Conversational “grown-up” interviews about past decisions, mistakes, and proud achievements.
  • Small, realistic coding tasks or mini “day at the office” problems, sometimes paid trials.
  • Limited use of open source or side projects as supplementary evidence, not hard filters.
• Concerns about alternatives:
  • Informal chats can embed bias (liking people “similar to me,” disadvantaging remote/non-native/less-networked candidates).
  • OSS emphasis favors those with free time, permissive employers, or access to certain ecosystems; there is also fake/performative OSS.

HR, Process Bloat, and Fundamentals

• HR-led multi-screen pipelines frustrate candidates, especially for highly specialized roles.
• Interview quality is often poor: inconsistent rubrics, pet questions, and overconfidence in 5–7 hours of interviews predicting thousands of work hours.
• Some managers report interviews mainly produce weak negative signals; work history and basic technical conversations often suffice.
• Underlying drivers cited: post-layoff glut of applicants, fear of visible hiring mistakes, lack of willingness to train juniors, and the absence of widely trusted credentials or certifications in programming.