Seeing the other side of the table has taught me to respect the randomness and arbitrariness of the process, and to take it a whole lot less personally. As a te

Seeing the other side of the table has taught me to respect the randomness and arbitrariness of the process, and to take it a whole lot less personally. As a technical interviewer, you're asked one question: given the range of performances you've seen on the question you used, where does the candidate sit? Calibration, or familiarity with a wide range of performances, is what makes your answer credible. The question is not "is this person good?" or "can they do the work?" The mandate is not "hire people who can do the work” and rejection is not "we don't think you can do the work.” The mandate is "hire people we're confident that we're excited about, even with the imperfect information we can afford." Like a competitive college, we're going to pass on a lot of applicants who are probably fine. It's not a reflection on their worth as people or as professionals. It's a pragmatic tradeoff in the design of a machine. It behooves all parties to cast their nets far and wide, and to not get emotionally invested in any particular match before the offer stage.