The process began with an initial telephonic round.

This was followed by a two-hour online programming test, which involved completing a small project.

Next, I had an in-person interview at the SFO branch, lasting approximately five to six hours.

After the interview, I was informed that while the team liked me, they felt I would be a better fit for another team based on my background. Consequently, I was asked to undergo another in-person interview with that alternate team. By this point, I was feeling quite fed up with the process. However, the recruiter mentioned that my chances of being hired were high, and I convinced myself that another two and a half to three hours was acceptable, given that I had already invested a grueling nine hours into the process.

Ultimately, I received the bad news: neither team felt I was up to the mark.

Perhaps I was. However, it was the worst time and manner to receive this information. I would have preferred to know beforehand rather than later. Pushing candidates to the point of exhaustion and disinterest is, in my opinion, not the best interviewing practice.

Interviewing for eleven hours is, I feel, insane. If such a significant amount of time is invested to assess a candidate's quality, it suggests that the interviewer may not be the right person to conduct the interview. No offense is intended, but I do not wish to interview with that company again in the future.

Not allowed to disclose the questions, I suppose.

I honor the privacy.