It was not an entry level. There was no designation to the role actually.
But what does that question mean anyway? Say I've been working in java stack for 10 years but for whatever reason I want to move to js/frontend. What else is there than entry level to begin with? Tech careers (at least honest ones) are rarely linear and there are hundreds of reasons for that.
you're being subjected to these entry level assessments because you haven't proved that you can apply your software design skills across different paradigms - build a portfolio or maintain a github
No, that's not why. Some companies just do this for every engineering hire, even those being hired for senior or specialized roles. I came in to my current job with two and a half decades of experience across multiple specialties, nearly a decade on a project they relied on and for which I was an upstream maintainer ... and I still got the whiteboard. Maybe there are some exceptions, but I have yet to meet one. Even characterizing it as an "entry level assessment" already misses the mark. It's more about avoiding bias (or the appearance of it) by trying to apply a uniform process and standard across the board.
Some might say you shouldn't want to work at those companies if you don't like their hiring process, as though there's nothing to any company but the hiring process. It's like saying you shouldn't join the military if you don't like basic training. Nobody likes basic training. People join organizations despite those things, and I for one am not going to judge them or assume their reasons are silly just because I might decide differently.
I've already said way more than I should considering I need to stay in this business for a good few more years. Communication was fine if that's what you're asking.
Great to hear that. I went through that hell (of course fell into the 80%) a few moths ago. Needless to say I was in total awe by the whole process. Awe as in, what the heck did I waste whole weeks for? How can the -seemingly best IT company- hire like that? Funniest part was that the recruiter giving me the bad news was assuming that I'd spent some more time in the future trying again to get in g. Like this is a life purpose or sth and she actually mentioned exactly that. Most people don't get in at first attempt. Which is like saying "we know we do it wrong because we hire the same people the second time around" so what the heck is all that supposed to test? Perseverance? Anyway - after that I had serious doubts that I'd ever be happy working there anyway so I was pretty confident that there wouldn't be no second time.
They hire that way because they are optimizing to avoid hiring bad engineers. Their entire process is shaped around that goal. In such a process, passing on good people is not considered a problem -- especially when they will reapply, which they do.
It's more that this is stuff you haven't used in years (because people don't write heapshort algorithms for a living) but you have been practicing and learning a ton of others (adding value to your company) that simply get eclipsed behind damned pedantic interviews.
Let me put it this way. I use 4-6 prog languages at work. On a weekly basis. But you can say that I confused the syntax for the language I wrote in the interview and fail the interview on that basis and you would be legit from your PoV. Point is -in real world- I don't need and it offers no value to remember the exact syntax between Python, Ruby, Nodejs to do this or that. The thing is I can search the syntax and have it in a sec because I know the logic behind them all. And most of actually working people I know are very busy staying sharp in what they do rather than wasting time upskiling in WB sorting algos.
It is strongly advised that if you get a question you've already practiced then you should tell your interviewers. At least that's the supposed code of conduct. So, what you're suggesting is that the code of conduct is just words and this is all just a set of moves that we have to go through.
What code of conduct? Who advises that? Expecting that to be followed seems like it would just disadvantage honest hard studiers and honest people who actually do figure out the solution on the spot, while rewarding dishonest talented performers who also happen to be hard studiers—so unless that's what you're trying to select for....
