[throwaway5Am1k]

This is such a hack response.

>not necessarily nefarious

It might not be nefarious, but if companies are putting out "feelers", and I'm investing ~30 hours per company, and half the companies I'm applying to are like this, then there's a huge waste of time (mine and theirs). I've started calling out this bullshit: "is there a job here, or is this a position to gauge the market?"

>10 hours of interviewing is barely more than a single workday.

It's never 10 hours. It's 5+ interviews, plus a take-home test (that can take ~10-20 hours), plus scheduling, prep, etc. It's never 10 hours. Stop validating shitty behaviour.

>I don’t think it’s unreasonable for a company to expect candidates to invest some time into going through an interview process.

I wouldn't mind, if there was a job on the other end. I can't even list the number of times I've gone through the whole interview process (at big companies!) and have been ghosted at the very end. I wish they'd stop wasting my time.

>The phenomenon of hiring people into high paying jobs after a couple hours of casual interviews was largely an artifact of the recent tech bubble.

That's how it's been most of history. 10-30 hours of interviews for a single job is a relatively new phenomenon.

>It’s also part of the reason we’re seeing mass layoffs

This is so false. We're in layoffs because we overhired, not because the interview process is too easy.

[Hermitian909]

> I'm investing ~30 hours per company

I just want to say that this is a much higher number than necessary. If you've got skills there's just no reason to ever accept more than 90-120 minutes total before the on-site. That's plenty to receive multiple top-of-market offers (or not top-of-market) even in the current market. Any company pushing trying to make an interview take this long on your side is not worth working at.

[zitterbewegung]

Playing devil's advocate if you don't want to do the take home test then they just filtered you out and actually is serving their desires on who they want to hire.

[danjac]

A reasonably-scoped take-home project is fine in isolation.

The problem is the sheer number of steps required, of which the project is just one step. For example for a recent position I looked at:

1. Initial interview with some HR person: 1 hour

2. Interview with a tech person and review some code sample (spot security issues, bugs etc): 1.5 hours

3. Take home project (supposed to take 2 hours, but you'll want to make it look good so you'll probably spend twice that): 4 hours

4. Another in-depth interview with a couple other tech people: 2 hours

5. Another interview with the CTO: 30 mins

6. References & background check.

That's not atypical. Round after round of interviews. It becomes an endurance test, where only the most dedicated will stay the distance. While the 8-10 hours might not seem much stretched out over several days, you want to add some prep, keep your calendar clear so it does eat up your spare time, especially if you are already working.

And that's just one job. What if you are interviewing at multiple companies?

Note the take-home is at the start of the process, not the end: so you can end up putting a lot of effort in before you have even cleared four or five other hurdles. Oh, and I don't even have an offer yet. It could well be the offer on the table isn't worth my time.

Now you could say "well, we only want dedicated people". Fine, but I'm dedicated in so far as I get paid to be working for you. I don't get paid to run your interview gauntlet. Maybe you want people willing to do free overtime?

And this is way more than it used to be maybe 10 years ago, and it's for small to medium sized companies, not FAANG or other big corps. Nor is it a feature of recent layoffs and resulting increase in the talent pool: this has been the case for a few years now.

I think there's a few factors at work:

- Endurance test

- Risk aversion culture in management

- Copypasta whatever Google or Apple do

[stanleydrew]

Yeah this. There's often a presumption like "I'm a very talented software engineer and everyone should want to hire me and thus companies shouldn't design a hiring process that I personally find annoying."

Hiring is a matching process. If a company with an annoying hiring process is a bad match for you, that's fine.

[PragmaticPulp]

> This is such a hack response.

Please be civil.

Posting multiple job listings targeting different salary ranges isn’t a “hack response”. It’s literally how you hire properly without a crystal ball to predict exactly who will apply.

Again, no company is going to drag candidates through interviews for jobs that don’t exist. I don’t understand why anything thinks that’s the case. Interviewing is work for the interviewers, too.

[appleiigs]

> no company is going to drag candidates through interviews for jobs that don’t exist

This happens all the time. The team will have an internal candidate they want, but HR dept is worried about optics of fairness, so the team is forced to put on a show by interviewing people who have no chance of being hired.

[pcdevils]

Most of the companies laying off people are huge businesses that apply the most onerous of interview hurdle jumping practices.

They didn't cut down on the process, or the five stage interview processes during the last two years of over hiring, they doubled down on them.

There are very few careers where entire industries like leetcode, hackerrank, coderpad etc have been founded to promote the practice of making every Dev slog through a mass of made up crap intent on wasting the time of everyone involved to make HR feel like they've achieved something.