I agree that this is a pretty well-written post. A couple key points that could be further emphasized are that: 1) Recruiters often have quotas too - In many c

I agree that this is a pretty well-written post. A couple key points that could be further emphasized are that: 1) Recruiters often have quotas too - In many cases, their own performance is measured by hitting hiring targets, so they're incentivized to get you in the door, even if not on best terms for you. 2) In the age of initial RSU stock grants, underleveling can be VERY, VERY costly. The difference between L and L - 1 could be > $100k/year, so the penalty may be far more severe than just time, especially if annual stock refresh is based on level as well. 3) Coding interviews aren't supposed to test knowledge of specific algorithms, but I've been part of a hiring committee at a FAANG and had to request another round of interviewing a few times because the original interviewer failed the candidate based on a chosen coding question that had to do more with knowledge of matrix math, graph theory, etc. than the ability to take a problem, break it down, consider edge cases, and produce code. 4) The process is indeed very arbitrary. My favorite story is about a time I submitted my resume and got a call from a recruiter two weeks later who loved my background. I interviewed and got an offer that I eventually declined. I learned during the process that my application was rejected by the company's resume scanning software. It was purely a coincidence that a recruiter happened upon my LinkedIn profile (which mirrored my resume) at nearly the same time.