That's… an unusually consistent signal. Suggests to me that either this person is getting into the wrong interviews (eg junior interviewing for senior role—though they say that's not the case), or more likely there's some hidden variable, like a bad reference, bad BO, really noticeable "culture" misfit, or other "red flag".
Regardless, the general points are spot on; it's a mess, for both sides. And even if the game weren't improved, I wish we all gave and got more honest feedback (however illegal that would be).
I think OP should use interviewing.io and take the feedback seriously. It's likely to be helpful if they want to actually pass those interviews. But there are other ways for a non-traditional candidate to make it.
You could be right. But given the highly random and variable nature of interviewing, the author could be the 1 in 100 competent engineer who does get rejected 23 times in a row.
Competent and interviews well can be disjoint sets. I've worked with lots of people from FAANG and helped many of them level up. There are psychological suggestibility and willingness to be slavish to your career heuristics that can silently filter.
These days I ask if they're open to a four day work week as a proxy for their stance towards the data supporting associated productivity and work life balance optimizations. Smart managers exist and this has been an excellent filter mechanism in their interviews for my attention.
Exactly. I mean, hiring strategies like this absolutely do have a bunch of false negatives: people who just didn't get lucky about what problem was asked, or had a brain fart at the wrong time. It happens.
But not at this kind of frequency it doesn't. If I got my quick back of the envelope statistics right (exactly the kind of skill that occasionally crops up in these jobs and on this interviews!), this would mean at 95% confidence the employers were incorrectly rejecting 88% of qualified candidates!
That's… an unusually consistent signal. Suggests to me that either this person is getting into the wrong interviews (eg junior interviewing for senior role—though they say that's not the case), or more likely there's some hidden variable, like a bad reference, bad BO, really noticeable "culture" misfit, or other "red flag".
Regardless, the general points are spot on; it's a mess, for both sides. And even if the game weren't improved, I wish we all gave and got more honest feedback (however illegal that would be).
Wishing you luck in this numbers game!