I'm almost 50. I pass about two-thirds of all my on-site interviews, but have 100% failed my FNG interviews (I got an offer from Amazon 15 years ago but declined because I didn't want to move to Seattle). I've failed Google 4 times, Facebook 3 times, and Netflix twice. I think my biggest problem is because I'm so old, their expectations are even higher than what I realistically am. I'm okay being hired as a "senior software engineer" and working my way up, but they insist on interviewing me as a staff level, which I clearly am not capable of achieving. I'm confident that if I were to get in, I would perform in the top tier of engineers, but it's those damn algorithm questions I just can't get past.
"Almost 50" means you're in your 40s. And you probably started interviewing in your mid-40s, at the latest, if you've already interviewed 4 times.
The gist of your comment might be correct, but I think we shouldn't perpetuate the mindset that mid-40s or even 50s is "so old."
In almost all knowledge-worker professions, age and experience is acknowledged as an asset. I think software companies are just starting to realize that, as the "move fast and break things" companies are now weighed down under technical debt and imposing hiring freezes on recent grads and junior engineers.
I feel like I'm in my prime in terms of experience and productivity, and though I may not want to work 70+ hour weeks or chug beers at the office anymore, I'm a considerably better engineer than I was 20 years ago. I think many of us intuitively know that, and we shouldn't let ourselves become victim to self-defeating SV groupthink.
I started interviewing at Google since about 2005 so over 15 years. I've seen the entire gamut of interview style questions, from trivia questions, to brain teasers, to easy algorithm questions, to the algorithm arms-race where LeetCode hard questions are now being asked. It has only gotten harder and the expectations as someone with 25+ years experience is too much. That is the biggest problem someone my age faces. I'm easily the best programmer on the team, but it's hard to show when I can't memorize 400+ LC questions for the FANG interviews.
> I'm okay being hired as a "senior software engineer" and working my way up, but they insist on interviewing me as a staff level, which I clearly am not capable of achieving.
> but it's those damn algorithm questions I just can't get past
I was under the impression there was a minimum bar on the algorithms that applies regardless of seniority and whether you pass the interview as a junior/senior/staff/etc. was mostly dependent on communication, system design interview, etc.
I'm curious how much you prepared for the interviews? I feel like after so many tries, you should have made it in (if just because you managed to get a set of questions you were familiar with). I think the reality is you need to dedicate serious time. I had one friend who got in pretty easily, he was a college dropout even, but he had been doing competitive coding for a couple years so pretty much knew every possible question.
It sends me into morbid down spirals. I'm almost angry and don't see the point of this. Why not ask for a Nobel Prize in theoretical physics. Two actually.
The answer to this typically is: even if you've never done these kinds of problems before and would not need to solve them during your employment, still go prepare, study and that would show your commitment to work hard and ability to learn. To which my (mental) response is: why don't you ask me to dance ballet for you? That would show a real commitment!
Same here. I never thought that made me an idiot, though. I just don't interview well. I had far more problems than just the technical portion of the interview when I first started in the field. I've gotten considerably better at the non-technical portion of the interview over the years, but being able to do higher level thinking in an interview has always been a non-starter for me.
I’ve had 10 jobs over the past 30 years, and I’d say I probably interviewed at four places that rejected me for every one of the 10 that accepted me. My hit rate is a little higher than his, but not really that much - I think the main difference is the prestige of the places he’s interviewing.
I wouldn't call 25% an outlier. Also, that's only people he knows. The numbers from interviewing.io (Aline Lerner) suggest that interview performance is arbitrary[0] and that engineers are bad at gauging their own interview performance[1]. The numbers suggest it's far more common than just 25%.
> I'm one of four people I know of who fails interviews at a high enough rate that I could fail 20 in a row (and I believe I have).
My reading of that is that out of all the people he knows, there are four that could plausibly "fail" 20 interviews in a row, not that 25% of (engineers?) he knows would do so.
>"I'd never thought about it this way before (look at who gets rejected and see what they have in common), but I guess there's one thing interviews are pretty good at filtering for: people who are a certain type of nervous in interviews."
Sounds about right. I can pass "take home quiz" style interviews at nearly 100%, but put me in front of a whiteboard and everything goes blank. Not sure why people insist on doing that.
Same experience here, I always chalked it up to anxiety. Tons of interviews, they generally love the hand-in stuff, but then whiteboarding kills me. Definitely jaded about it by now.
I'd say that about mirrors my experience as well. Is this really that common? Here I was thinking that I'm just an idiot.