I recognize that its standard practice for tech companies to bring candidates onsite and put them through many coding challenges as part of the interview process. Its well known that when interviewing for major companies like Google, that you will be in store for 4+ hours of this. I find that I'm perfectly willing to go through such a lengthy and grueling process for a job at a major/prestigious company. However, I hesitate to do the same at lesser known organizations (unless they've already convinced me of their mission and potential for success).
I understand the need to vette candidates, but (as an experienced software engineer) is it wrong to feel somewhat insulted (or perhaps disappointed) when asked to go through a 5 hour onsite interview for a company? What is a graceful way to handle this situation?
First off, I'm blown away by the responses and discussions below. I think this might help clarify and address some of the issues:
- I understand that it is VERY costly for a company to make a bad hire. From their perspective it makes sense to put candidates through this kind of scrutiny.
- I don't have a sense of entitlement and fully expect to be put through technical interviews that include whiteboard coding challenges. However, I feel that there is a limit to how much of that I'm willing to do, which seems to shift depending on who its for.
- Its not always easy to find enough information to form an opinion before stepping in their door and doing an onsite interview. If the company is small and/or relatively new, there may not be any information available on Glassdoor or other sites.
Just to clarify, I do expect to be put through technical interviews as part of any company's process. I completely understand their perspective and don't blame them for having a rigorous process. I think it comes down to weighing my interest level against what they are asking. If their demands on my time outweigh what I'm willing to give (due to uncertainty or other reasons), then maybe its an indicator to move on.