Why tech job interviews became such a nightmare
Hiring for well-paid software roles has evolved into multi-round gauntlets of LeetCode-style tests, take‑home projects, and opaque processes that many engineers describe as demoralizing and inefficient. Commenters link this to a glut of applicants, FAANG-style processes being cargo‑culted by smaller firms, risk‑averse HR and managers, and the lack of widely trusted credentials in programming, which pushes companies to overuse technical gatekeeping. Others note that similarly paid fields often rely more on pedigree, face‑to‑face judgment, or long one‑time licensing hurdles, and suggest alternatives such as shorter, more realistic work samples, stronger use of past experience, or professional certifications to reduce the current “meat grinder” effect.
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.