I was contacted by a recruiter for this position. The first round focused on my experience and interest in Faculty, and it went great. The second round was a 90-minute technical interview with a Python solution plus questions on machine learning, uncertainty, and statistics. I solved the coding problem correctly and felt I did very well overall. In the end, they didn’t continue with my application because I “didn’t explain really well” another topic (one I don’t even remember being asked). The feedback felt vague, and it seemed more about whether the interviewers liked you rather than the actual performance.

Technical coding interview with two interviewers. The process could’ve been improved by providing details about what would be needed upfront. I had to install Jupyter Notebooks and work out how to disable AI in my IDE during the interview itself, which took several minutes. The interview ended up being cut short as I struggled on the coding test. No complaints about the outcome or decision at all. The senior interviewer would benefit from displaying some empathy with interviewees and being less condescending, however. He seemed to be irritated, stating: ‘even our junior data scientists know basic Python’. While I admittedly struggled on the test, it would’ve been clear I did know basic Python, having worked my way up from junior data scientist roles to senior leadership positions over the last 10+ years. Perhaps he’d had a bad day, but it shouldn’t be an excuse for being borderline rude with candidates who were given little context upfront about the nature of the interview (the preparation I’d done was completely off course, and it’d been years since I’d attempted working on a problem like the one set in this interview).