The office is okay, but the interview process is a complete disaster. There's not much care for people; they hire standard units for the army. They are also very against any remote work, making LinkedIn feel stuck in the old ages.

I applied for a Senior SWE position at the Carpinteria office, where they work on integrating the acquired Lynda.com website. Life there is calm, and developers are often working on non-ambitious tasks like daily bugs. The campus is primarily for people who create educational courses, and the tech team is small.

I had a screening call two weeks after applying and progressed to the on-site interview. The process was slow, and the recruiters were on the edge of being unprofessional. The recruiter ignored the dates and times for calls I provided. When speaking, they delivered a fast-paced burst of information with the sole aim of hanging up quickly. Throughout the process, they pushed me to list other companies I was interviewing with, falsely claiming they knew schedules and that it would help them plan. This was clearly a distraction; I did not surrender my privacy.

They also stressed how much they care about people, but the reality (based on talks with their engineers and the interview process) proved otherwise.

They sent me a barrage of marketing emails about the "high honor" of working at LinkedIn, preparing me to showcase algorithmic skills, and how they value people. I suppose their phrase, "at lunch, you will be assessed by your curiosity and questions," proves this supposed care about people, particularly a candidate attending a full-day interview and hoping for a small break. However, due to the organization's disarray, none of the SWEs knew about this assessment, and we just had a normal lunch.

The only positive experience was when they sent me documents to sign before the interview. When I couldn't sign one of the improper items, they were flexible enough to skip it. The line stated I authorized LinkedIn to obtain any information about me from anyone on Earth, with no responsibility for storing it properly and the ability to use it for any purpose. Be aware of such nonsense and do not sign it.

The on-site interview consisted of 5 rounds plus lunch, and it was a failure. The most amusing part is that 4 out of 5 on-site interviews were conducted via video calls. This visit was useless; I didn't talk with the team and could have done it from home. Yet, they called it an "on-site interview."

The campus looks okay, though the cubicles are dark. The lunch provided is basic, merely something to prevent you from leaving campus. Salaries are on the lower end; Senior SWEs are unable to afford living nearby and instead commute 40-60 miles daily. The hiring manager accidentally met me in the morning but never spoke to me or joined the lunch. As mentioned, they hire units with specific characteristics, not people.

The first round was a system design task. The organization was poor: the whiteboard was positioned orthogonally to the camera, making it difficult for the interviewer to see. I performed well in this round.

The second round was an algorithmic coding task. The whiteboard issue persisted, making it hard for me to see, which caused delays in copying the drawing to paper. Another failure: they didn't even provide a laptop for coding. I had to use my own, connect it, and then access the URL the interviewer was using. This demonstrated the quality of professionals at LinkedIn! The task involved traversing a tree; I suggested and implemented the best solution. The interviewer assumed I didn't know how to calculate the amortization cost of an ArrayList expansion, but their poor video conference quality prevented further discussion.

The third round was an interview with a manager from New York, who assessed my culture fit and goals. This interview was unhelpful as he was unaware of the work in Carpinteria and only relayed standard messages about caring for people. He again pressured me to disclose other companies I was speaking with.

The fourth round was with a local developer and involved whiteboard coding for a segmentation/allocation task. This went okay; I suggested several alternatives and coded in bit-mask format.

The fifth round focused on technical communication, requiring me to whiteboard and explain a technical task to an engineer via video call. The connection was poor, but I passed this round.

A week later, the recruiter called to inform me I didn't pass due to the first coding task. It was another rapid delivery of template text followed by an immediate hang-up. I emailed asking if the result could be re-checked, as I believed I completed everything, even with their technical fiascos with the laptop and whiteboard. However, I never received a response. They claim to care deeply about people, but they don't consider a former candidate to be human.

I believe I learned everything I needed to know about LinkedIn.

Implement a tree traversal with some data extraction.