Just had a new grad onsite on Monday. There were only two coding questions in the entire onsite and they were both questionably easy (an ad-hoc brute force problem and a ripoff of 'Number of Islands'). Do these interviews even offer enough signal to rank the extremely large number of candidates they're interviewing? Pretty sure everyone who passed the HackerRank without cheating got perfect solutions to both problems. Looks like they're almost looking to make arbitrary hiring decisions based on who the interviewers 'liked' or 'clicked with' - because that's the only thing that will be different across candidates who have already passed a coding screen with considerably harder problems.
isnt the tc really low?
Would you prefer to get LC hards and fail them? You lucked out and got an easy interview, count your blessings
"Would you prefer to get LC hards and fail them?" I absolutely wouldn't fail them FWIW, but that would be making the same mistake asking all easy problems is making - provide a questionable amount of signal, less than what's needed to rank the fuck ton of people they're interviewing.
The risk of failing an LC hard is higher. You might walk on water and solve LC double black diamond, but you are still a human. There is actually a lot of signal even in LC easy, with differentiation even between two correct solutions. But I'm not going into "what interview format provides more signal" discussion as the reality is the error bars are still pretty high no matter what you do.
I guess you are rejected
no decision yet but wouldn't be surprised by either possibility
Doordash want to expand heavily. Lot of headcount. Hence now is not the time to keep quality bar high but get more folks typing and coding.
if the bar is really low and if they really meant the interviews as a 'sanity test', that's completely acceptable - that's probably what I was misunderstanding. Doordash seems hard to get into for some reason.
Update: got rejection
You're a new grad. You don't have relevant skills yet unless you're an outlier so ya they just wanna make sure you're not an idiot and that you fit in well with company culture.
I mean yeah... Think about it, people with far less skill get hired over more skilled workers all the time. Why? Because they're approachable, friendly, sociable, and could be a good team member rather than a guy who can solve a leetcode hard but lack any sort of personality making a shitty team dynamic.
I mean if you can only work with people who "don't lack personality" (wtf does that even mean??), you're the one who'd make for a shitty team dynamic.
Companies and teams have a culture. If they don't think you're going to fit in they're not going to hire you. Ive interviewed candidates that we rejected purely off of how we conversed in the interviews. We asked ourselves: would we want to put this guy in a call with one of our clients? No? Okay on to the next. The "lack of personality" is subjective to the team. So if the team all "lacks personality" and you're a yippity yipper, odds are you won't mesh with that team well and it'd be bad for both parties.