During the one-hour screening call, I was informed that the total interview process would take approximately seven hours—nearly a full workday. It began with a one-hour assessment, followed by three additional technical assessments and two one-hour interviews if the initial assessment was passed. While this might be feasible for someone who is currently unemployed, for me, it was an immediate red flag. For a company that aims to improve the hiring process, I was confused why they would make it so difficult for job seekers, until I remembered that their clients are the corporations not the people seeking employment. That said, I have strong reservations about live coding assessments, particularly when they feel unnecessarily restrictive and counterproductive. In my experience, the interviewer himself acknowledged the difficulty of the challenge, and while the company emphasized that we could use "tools" like ChatGPT, they also imposed strict limitations on how they could be used. If the goal is to evaluate how candidates perform in a real work environment, then the assessment should reflect that—allowing candidates to use tools as they naturally would on the job. Additionally, I was initially told I could work in silence, yet I was frequently interrupted with questions throughout the assessment, which made for a disjointed experience. Another aspect I find perplexing is that live coding sessions are often conducted with random employees rather than the hiring manager. In most industries, interviews are between the candidate and decision-makers—not with various team members in a high-pressure, performative setting. The takeaway: If you're comfortable with live coding, you'll likely do well. If not, prepare as best as you can, stay resilient, and don’t let it discourage you.

Interviewer was receptive and helpful, created a collaborative environment. I only got to the initial technical screen. I was conducted in a coder pad environment with a single question that required multiple steps to fully complete.