There's a lot of "going-through-the-motions" recruiting going on. That is to say that they'll put you through an interviewing process, but you'll never get in, no matter how well you do. There are a number of reasons this goes on. One of them is an organization's ability to pat themselves on the back by "hiring only the best" and letting current employees do the interviewing, a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's like a game show where the host has all the answers and if you miss a single one, they have some lovely parting gifts for you.

These organizations tend to suck up a lot of the oxygen in the room. So for perhaps 20 of those 30 of your interviews, there's plenty of good talent that they turn their nose up at. Speaking from experience, the harsher the interview, the more likely it is to be the case that you never had a chance.

If you're going through spammy recruiters, consider not. There's a factor of cognitive dissonance going on where prospective employers want to hire you, but can't get past the principle of paying the recruiter's spiff (if you're seeking $180k on contract, this would've been ok, but not by the time they add the recruiter fee, they decide you're not worth $205k). The employer will waste everybody's time in the process. This looks good (they think) to the investors.

Push instead of pull to get your next job. LinkedIn, AngelList, a number of other sites.. when it's a good fit, the interview will be suspiciously easy.

The game show reference is hilarious, and painfully true.

Job seeker here. This sounds like exactly what I'm going through. Applied to 15 jobs in the last week and got five of them to reply back with the ATS auto rejection.

I disagree with the other comments. If you interviewed 30 times and are an expert in the field, you probably made up for the variants at this point.

The culture today systematically lacks respect for seniority.

You don't give non-standardized technical screenings to candidates with a demonstrable track record. What are you trying to do by screening people? Are you saying that the applicant is potentially fraudulent?

Why isn't their technical screening standardized? What is it testing for? Is there confirmation by an independent body the screening represents the responsibilities of the role?

Some more factors:

- If it's a startup and you have 10 years of experience, you'd have more experience than most founders. Outshining the master is super-unemployable, unless they're willing to split equity and let you in as a co-founder. Then they're serious. Otherwise, you're just another programmer to them.

- The person interviewing you doesn't want to hire the person who replaces them. Then they'd be stuck job hunting like you. Unless they're retiring in the near future, being too good is probably going to get you a sham technical screening, or some excuse that flunks you early on.

- There is a reporting bias. Due to survivor guilt, you don't see people chiming in every time they get their time wasted.

Great analysis... I like your 'outshine the master comment'. There is a good chance that the OP is intimidating the interviewer and should make an effort to display humility to counteract this.

"Outshining the master is super-unemployable"

Any founder worth a grain of salt, i.e. one you'd want to work for, realizes their weaknesses and strives to hire people smarter than they are.

I think that's an idealization of what it should be.

I think that's what would be best for business.

So, back at a company called Buzzr, we had an opportunity to hire a very talented programmer known in the Drupal community. Many many accomplishments, it's safe to say if we took him on, it'd radically change our day to day operations (we needed to do something, in my opinion). He really did espouse the best of the concepts of Drupal, which was perfect, since we were a Drupal SAAS platform.

We didn't take him on. There wasn't much chat - but I was able to scoop up hearsay of why: He'd shake things up too much; too opinionated.

Here's the thing though: who would he be butting heads against? Nobody really had strong technical opinions. I was really junior at the time, and would be honored to work with him.

If you're somebody that has accomplishments and a track record, you're going to have opinions and a style. And for some reason, even startups where there is open room for delegation, decision makers lean toward protecting their turf. Even in situations where they couldn't do better themselves. Even when they're desperate for help.

We're making the mistake of viewing organizations being game theorists that make the most optimal decision - that's not always the case. Organizations don't hire, divisions and teams within them do. In practice, it's more nuanced and political.

It's safe to say, the decision maker's self-preservation overshadows the business making the best decisions.

Sometimes irking the decision maker's pride - disdaining something superior to them - is enough to end the process. It's less cognitive dissonance to just move to the other 999 applications in the pile, than worry how we're going to manage a generative, creative force. The narrative shifts to finding the most "appropriate" candidate based on the hiring manager's sense of safety.

That's my anecdote.

Thanks for sharing. I found your views and points insightful.

That's a good point, but in my experience the founder interview usually takes place last, and only if you've been green lit by the previous interviewers.

I have many times where founders call me right after submitting my application.

There are also times where they are ecstatic at first, but something happens. I don't know - maybe someone's being a bad reference and I have to check on them, or I come off as ragged to them, who knows. Maybe I'm just so honest and candid I talk them out of hiring me.

Part of it is me. In job interviews, I make myself vulnerable, rather than assertive. They already Googled me (whether they admit it or not) and know what I can do. This is someone I'd work for, not an equal. Can I trust them to have integrity and be fair? Because that's what employment is, they have overwhelming power over your life.

Or maybe they move their line of thinking forward, "where are we going to put him?"

I've created open source applications from end-to-end. I have my own way of doing things. I'm enough of a force where people use my software on their machines, import my libraries, and use my documentation. That's a lot to process. Compare that to a fresh candidate on a clean slate that passed their technical screenings. On top of that, there's a couple of hundred to pick from.

Hiring me poses friction and risk. The applicant that passed all the tests conformed and regimented themselves to follow instruction? That's a worker, not a mover/shaker.

See what I mean? It's great to be a "somebody" in a technical field, but sometimes even founders realize their "quest for talent" isn't really so.

But based on this post, I think your issue is you're playing by their rules, doing their take homes and tests, to make it into the pool of "safe picks". Unrealized to many is that hundreds throw themselves at these tests, and they exist only to give the one flipping through resumes less eye strain.

It's not a dignifying experience.

These technical screenings are a sham. They protect entrenched streetwise careerists and lock out honest, reliable people who get stuff done. It promotes imposter syndrome, and wastes thousands of hours of time. This is one of the biggest problems in tech.

To repeat: the reason you don't hear more of this is people don't like to announce they're a failing at "getting a job". It's universal in most cultures being unemployed is being a failure. Understandably, people aren't going to publicly announce their struggle.

They think it's them. Sometimes it is. But if you've interviewed over years, or many many times, you've ruled out the quirks. You're now going to have to come to grips that you're not crazy, that there are systemic realities outside your control pushing you out. Probably ones which don't jive with the ideals of (fairness? merit? esteem?) of being a software developer.

What do you fill your time with, while you're job searching? I don't think you said.

First of all I appreciate what you've written in this thread. It sounds like we've had similar experiences.

> To repeat: the reason you don't hear more of this is people don't like to announce they're a failing at "getting a job".

This is reassuring to hear. It's really easy for me to feel crazy and depressed with the constant rejections. Crazy because I'm constantly being told that I'm not able to do the exact things I've been praised for doing again and again in the past.

> I think your issue is you're playing by their rules

I think you're right. I need to try something else.

> What do you fill your time with, while you're job searching? I don't think you said.

I've kept to my workday routine every day since becoming unemployed. Interviewing takes up a lot of the time. Aside from that I have some side projects that I work on occasionally. However my computer was stolen during the move, and I lost a lot of early prototypes that hadn't yet made it to Github. Sometimes when I try to work on one of those projects I just get caught in depression feedback loop. I released (and sold out!) a record last week, so I'll spend some time this week making a small app to help me fulfill those orders.

Absolutely. They may even go as far as saying it around the office and to all their friends. ;)

So I've been to a few interviews recently to feel out the market, and I thought they went well, but it turns out they didn't. I was wondering why and realized that as a senior engineer I seem to be confident in my abilities, and don't really worry about not knowing something, because given a minute, I could do some research and come up with a great solution. I realized though, that interviews are not tuned for this. It's almost as if they are tuned to new grads and filtering them out based on what academic knowledge they retained, not pure problem solving skills. At least this is the vibe I got from the large companies out there.

If I was determined to get another coding job in a large company, I realized I simply need to conform, study, and prep. It only makes logical sense for them to have this system to filter out the huge number of applicants, but for me its like a waste of my time, reviewing and memorizing the specifics of a bunch of stuff that I may continue to never use.

It's almost like my "imposter syndrome" early in my career lead me to put on a veil of self-confidence and to "try hard" to prove myself. Which actually led to positive interview outcomes (I used to ace each one I went to). Now I am confident in my skin, and don't feel the need to compensate, which, I'm realizing, actually has a negative effect on people's perception of me as an engineer.

This is why I say it hurts businesses too.

If they're interviewing people and giving them trivia questions, they fundamentally don't understand the job.

We keep docs open all day. That's what browser tabs are for. Even seemingly basic stuff. Too much to keep fresh in memory.

I don't remember libtmux's API (a library I created). How do you expect me to remember python standard libraries I never used?

It's futile to explain to the interviewer - no matter how gently - that it's not the way it's done. That's being a prima donna. That's upstaging them, and going to be taken as a slight.

Part of the reason I'm passive in interviews is they already googled me (even if they don't mention it). They know I can program. If they're throwing curve balls at me, I ask myself if this is someone I want as a colleague. Is this someone who would take my technical advice.

I leave the interview with a sense of relief I don't have to live through the hell of a nightmare boss or toxic environment. Like a MoBA game, this is the chance to dodge early.

Screening can works both ways.

Could it not also be a filter for expensive? Do you think if you do the prep etc, they may find another way to filter out your expertise?

This describes my experiences perfectly.

The best advice I got (but not about technical stuff or homework):

Identify a problem the company has and offer a solution. When exactly to play the card in the interview is up to you, maybe you can even phrase it in to a question, I think most employers ask if there are any further questions at the end of an interview. If you can than sprinkle some expertise on the solution, even better (comparing it to some problem you solved in the past, not bragging about expertise).

If you can't find anything concrete, maybe you find a few maybes you can ask for and have a solution ready when they admit that something is a challenge. They definitely will see that you know where things could get difficult.

I hear you. I am on somewhere around a 0/20 streak right now. The industry can have a lot of extremely pretentious people. I think you just need to be your best self; show as much true passion about development as you have and wait for somebody at a company you like who shares and appreciates your enthusiasm. Also keep up with personal projects on Github to show you are active. This is what was holding me back for a while before my last job.

Thanks for the advice, and good luck to you.

A couple recommendations for you:

Interviewing is a skill like any other, and it's worth practicing. I know it's not great to have to "play the game", but it'll help you greatly in your career. I recommend two things - programming contests (TopCoder, HackerRank, etc.), and practicing with friends - get a whiteboard and get your friends to interview you. Repetition is key.

Think of good answers to higher level questions. For example, "why do you want this job?".

Reflect on common patterns in your interviews. If you sit down and think about it, do you know why you aren't passing? Are you unable to solve some problems? Are you going slowly on the interview problems? Do people have trouble understanding you? Do you get in arguments? Do you struggle with the management sort of questions - i.e. "talk about a time that you had a disagreement with someone on your team"?

One good signal is to think of how many hints do interviewers typically give you? If it's one or two, that's typical, but when you find yourself getting 5+, it's usually a sign that you're doing poorly.

Some common problems that I've seen from candidates.

- Can't solve problems. Especially when people run in some direction without asking clarifying questions.

- Really messy code. Interview code isn't going to be great, but I've seen some really messy code.

- Slow movement. Sometimes I'll have a 3 part question, and candidates will spend the whole time solving the first part, often needing many hints.

- Lack of opinion. I've seen a lot of candidates that try to be agreeable, but just end up having no opinions. "What frameworks would you consider for monitoring?" "Oh, whatever is best. Monitoring is really important." This is really important for senior candidates.

- Lack of answers for the high level questions (again more toward senior candidates). Q: "Talk about a time that you've had a disagreement with someone on your team?" A: "Oh, I haven't really." Q: "Ok, how about a time that you made a technical decision that you ended up regretting." A: "I can't think of anything, we've made good choices." Q: "What about a time that you've disagreed with a decision from senior management?" A: "Got nothing." Q: "What kind of software do you like working on?" A: "Oh, anything really."

I see similar posts here every now and then recently, and I myself had a similar experience a year ago when looking for a job after shutting down a startup. I have a similar background and number of years as you do. Compared to 10 years ago, I think we're at a place where there are a lot more qualified full stack developers who meet baseline standards, which allow companies to be a lot pickier (I find it a lot harder now to land a job offer compared to 10 years ago, personally). Which means you may have to "play the interview game" -- study and practice up on algorithms. It does kinda suck, but this might just be the state of things now. Curious, do you happen to have relocated to SF Bay Area? I'm wondering if the symptoms are SF-specific because there are so many candidates in this area.

Some of the companies were based in SF, but I was interviewing remotely.

Either you come off very poorly for a variety of reasons, or you're interviewing for jobs that don't really exist or with companies that enjoy wasting time on recruiting for sport.

Look for shorter term contract gigs. Those are usually real, and once you get in the door, it's often easier to suss out what is real and what is not, and who the players are in that org. Many of the best employees that I've seen hired at non-entry levels came in through that route.

> Look for shorter term contract gigs

I initially applied for shorter contract gigs, but I found they had the same interview process as full-time salaried gigs. In the future I'll push back on some of the interview requirements for contract work.

Did you try destroying the interviewer? Usually, when an interviewee gives us the solution, we listen to them and then respond with, "you can instead do this". Which includes some trap. Interviewees who don't blindly do what we say and challenge our solution and explain us the reason pass our technical interview. Also, the board interviews are trivial for an engineer/coder. We usually ask very simple questions like "When would you choose linked-list over an array?" or some language specific stuff like "What's the difference between shared_ptr and unique_ptr?". It's trivial if you claim to have 10 year experience in C++. I mostly interview for startups but we don't trust your past title or years of experience by default even if it can be verified in some way. Some body-shops, simply reward fancy titles in lieu of raise less promotions which makes these titles useless.

Out of curiosity, how long do these homework assignments usually take? A friend has send me his (applied for a remote position) for review and it looked like 4 hours best case. That was even before the phone interview. Doing 5 or 10 of those really adds up.

The most recent one was capped at two hours, but some can definitely grow to the 6-8 hour range. The worst part is, the submissions are rarely discussed. They're just a step to get to the next interview.

You miss 100% of the shots you don't take.

What would be the point of taking yourself out of the job force. You can try applying Accenture or some other consulting company. They don't really technically grill you.

I think you underestimate the destructive impact of 30 failed interviews. Stepping back and just doing algorithms for some time might be a good thing to do at this point.

Everyone wants to work in California and everyone wants to work remotely. So, I think the combination of the 2 makes competition harder for you. I believe that's pretty much it... 7 billion people on earth, there's always a handful of people better than you (skills). Software isn't a niche anymore especially with globalization and certain countries where billions (not millions) of people have the exact same skills.

After having similar trouble I started working on a "social network" of sorts to assist with networking and learning programming career related things: https://coderpact.com

I am available (to you or anyone else) for mock interview sessions.

If you sign up I'll contact you or feel free to email me at: contact@coderpact.com

The key is to figure out WHY you don't do well in technical interviews, and then fix the root cause.

Do you known/guess whether the problem is the actual technical part, or everything surrounding it, which makes you appear as "sub-optimal cultural fit", e.g. person that is so nervous that they make everybody else feel uncomfortable too.

I don't know for sure, but I bet it's a bit of both (not necessarily at the same time).

One time in particular I matched on every single technical requirement in the job post, only to be told that "experience with our tech stack isn't important as culture fit". I'm still not sure if he said that because he believed I didn't have the tech experience and wanted to make me feel good, or if he knew I had the experience but already knew he wasn't going to hire me.

If you matched the technical requirements, then it seems exceptionally open way of saying "you are not good culture fit".

Maybe next step is to figure out WHY you are perceived as bad culture fit?

Do you have any obvious issues like being very nervous in interviews, or underlying general issues such as anxiety, or just being a very quiet person?

> nervous in interviews, or underlying general issues such as anxiety, or just being a very quiet person?

Yes, all three. The nervousness and anxiety are especially heightened during interviews, but I don't experience either on the job. Does that make me not a culture fit?

Well, if you have solid technical experience, but are being very nervous and quiet, and a recruiter tells you straight to face that "culture fit is more important", then the reason for failing 30/30 interviews seems fairly clear.

Why don't you A/B test yourself? Take double dose of your favorite anxiolytic and dress more casually to next interview and see what happens. If you fail again then it's 31/31 and not a big loss.

I don't think giving up at this point is something I would do in your position. You're pretty much primed when it comes to interviewing. Not sure if it's kosher or not, but I'm curious on your background, experience and what your resume looks like.

Also, how did you come across these 30 interviews?

The majority of the interviews came from responding to ads on startup focused job boards. I send a brief, personalized message which usually gets a conversation started.

I understand the pain. I am in same boat, trying for over 6 months. definitely there is dome thing changed in the industry culture. you are competing with every one in the world and need connections inside company

Where did you relocate to?

California (not bay area), but primarily interviewing for remote roles.