There were three rounds of interviews, and almost all of them followed the same pattern. It felt like the interviewer came with a question paper and lacked the creativity to make the interview more interesting. However, not to be distracted by my above statement, the overall question paper was good enough to validate the candidate.

Round 1: The interviewer asked to write code for a medium-level algorithm problem. They were very concerned about the working code rather than the thought process behind it. If you were on a double screen, you could easily copy-paste the solution without bothering to explain it.

Round 2: This was more of a behavioral round. Again, the interviewer was just bothered about filling the sheet and killing time. Even though my very first answer incidentally covered the solutions for the rest of his 7-8 questions, he insisted I keep thinking of new answers every time. Eventually, when I tried to divert the discussion to important points, he pulled back to filling the sheet. There were more than five overlaps of similar situations that had already been answered.

Round 3: This round was supposed to be technical plus behavioral with the EM. Again, some easy-to-medium level coding questions were asked, and as usual, behavioral questions were posed. This round was more focused on code quality.

Round 1: Medium-level algorithm question.

Round 2: How do you handle conflicts in a team? How do you manage sprints, etc.?

Round 3: Focus on coding style based on different scenarios.