The interview process consisted of 4 parts: Screening interview with the recruiter. A written assessment consisting of various questions asking about new technologies you've recently learned and how you went about learning them, past collaboration efforts, and how you'd prioritize tickets. A 45-minute interview with the manager. A TWO-HOUR, yes, two-hour long interview with various team members. Step 4 is the most absolutely tedious portion of the entire process. In my experience, it started off with one of the managers swearing while demoing the FloQast platform. Having to repeat much of everything that's already been said to other department managers thus creating a lot of redundancy. Meeting future teammates who openly admit they lack technical qualifiers that are expected of candidates. The peer interview segment, intended to assess team compatibility, felt more like a forum for biases and insecurities to surface, given the apparent disparities in technical experience. This part of the process left me with the impression that such differences significantly influenced the final hiring decision. Reflecting on the entire experience, I came away feeling that the process could benefit from a greater focus on evaluating candidates' technical abilities and professional experiences in a more structured and less repetitive manner. The approach taken, especially during the later stages, did not align with my expectations of a professional interview process, contributing to my overall negative perception of the experience and company.