4 ms·
Same age, I recently interviewed at two FAANG companies. Mostly algorithms and system design interviews. I thought I did pretty well (something like 3 very goo
by yodsanklai 7y ago
Same age, I recently interviewed at two FAANG companies.
Mostly algorithms and system design interviews. I thought I did pretty well (something like 3 very good interviews, 1 good, and 1 ok). In both cases, the conclusion was that my results were good enough for an L4 position, but they wouldn't hire me for less than L5. (Why not, I'd be happy as an L4...). Also, I found the interview process pretty random and arbitrary. One company praised my algorithmic skills, while the other said that I did very well on system design). They encouraged me to re-apply.
I'm not concerned about the actual job, I don't feel less capable than my 30 year old self. I'm more knowledgeable, and I have more experience with human interactions.
The interviewers all told me that you don't have to be a manager if you don't want to, and that good developers were always valued, regardless of their age. I don't know how much of this is true though. I can't help thinking that my age had played against me in the final decision.
The interview process is a pain. It's very random, it takes a lot of time preparing (some people literally spend months working full time). The things they ask you have very little value besides getting you a job. At least, it's kind of fun to work on these leetcode problems, but after 200 hundred variations of BST and dynamic programming exercices it starts to get old. Also, if you already have a demanding job (and maybe a family), it's hard to find the time to practice.
If you spend enough time preparing AND if you aren't stressed out during the actual interview, I think you can pass with reasonable probability the algorithm interviews. I found system designs a little more random. My question wasn't in the "syllabus" they provided me. Also, as an older programmer, there may be many things that you knew a few years back. You're disadvantaged compared to a younger graduate.
- southphillyman 7y ago>In both cases, the conclusion was that my results were good enough for an L4 position, but they wouldn't hire me for less than L5. (Why not, I'd be happy as an L4...). Can you elaborate on this? Were you interviewing specifically for L5 roles? I wonder if years of experience or even achievements can be used against a candidate by raising the bar so to speak. Maybe one is a L5 at their current company but only a L4 elsewhere. As long as you can contribute at whatever level is appropriate for the given company I don't think it should be held against the candidate.
- yodsanklai 7y agoI was applying for a software engineering position. No particular level was specified. After the interviews, the recruiter basically told me that they couldn't make me an offer for a L4 position, considering my experience (I think he mentioned 7 years of experience). Interestingly, I had the exact same explanation at two different companies. A year later a different recruiter from the same company contacted me again to ask me to re-interview. Then he contacted the recruiter from one year ago to see if I had to retake the initial phone interview, or go directly on site. After discussing with her, he told me that they don't have currently an L5 position open, and that he would be contact me again in a few months (which he didn't).
- southphillyman 7y agoThanks, I hear a lot of stories of people being down leveled but it sounds like some companies have strict bands related to YOE. L4 appears to be mid level and I guess 7 yrs if on the upper limits of that but you'd think they'd give you the option of being down leveled or not to get your foot in the door.
- sokoloff 7y agoFarther up the page is a comment that rings true to me: companies who have a surplus of applicants are prone to rationally bias their hiring practice to avoid making poor hires even at the risk of rejecting strong candidates. Just because someone with many years of experience levels lower than typical doesn’t make them a bad person or even a bad hire. But it does make them a more risky candidate to hire (more likely to be "middle of the pack"; less likely to be "undiscovered superstar"), and so some companies choose to pass. (I’m arguing that this is rational, not that it’s right, fair, or morally sound.)
- lubesGordi 7y agoWell, I'd argue it still isn't rational given that the testing done during the interview is usually not telling much about the candidates engineering prowess.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- dominotw 7y agoits not random, you can learn how to hack it by reading these on leetcode https://leetcode.com/discuss/interview-experience/360829/amazon-sde1-seattle-july-2019-offer https://leetcode.com/discuss/interview-experience/360829/ama...