- Step 1 (passed): live coding exercise in vanilla javascript where you have to call an endpoint asynchronously and process the responses depending on the response times. This wasn't difficult and the engineer in front of me was all nice and polite. It was just made pretty obvious from the beginning that we were there to check my JS skills, not my personality nor to discuss the role in itself - Step 2 (passed): "management" interview with very classical questions about difficulties I've encountered with previous management situations, my leadership style, etc. No particular difficulty there if you know your pitch and have a few things to tell about what you've done so far. - Step 3 (failed): Javascript (again...) project to complete in 4 hours. My solution was working and 100% of the requirements were met. I received an automated email 1 day later from "no-reply" saying my application was rejected. No explanation, no feedback whatsoever. - Step 4: interview with a founder - Step 5: interview with an engineer of the team Conclusion: Avoid. Their process is just rude. Even if you're a top-notch JS developer and you're taken, do you really want to lose your time with people that are so much careless about other humans that they can't take 5 minutes to give you feedback after a failed interview?... High salary is a lure there.

Despite being a leadership position, they still want to make sure you have the ability to write code (which is a big plus in my opinion). Took less than 2 days to get an initial response back and setup a phone interview. Initial interview was scheduled for 30min during which I had to perform a live code exam. After the initial interview, I was contacted via email (about a day later) by another team member regarding the take-home test. I was given a type of "packet" with a stubbed-out UI, jQuery and some basic requirements. The team member that reached out to me said it should take around 4 hours to complete - which it did. Once I submitted my test, I got a response back the same day indicating that I would no longer move forward in the process with a very vague reason as to why ("looking for something more polished"). I followed up with the team member to try and get some more actionable or specific feedback... but never got an answer (not a surprise). I personally found the interview process to be fine overall, but thought it was a pretty inconsiderate that after a candidate has spent around 4 hours completing the take-home test... to not give a concrete reason to not move forward.

My experience was *exactly* the same as what was said here: https://www.glassdoor.com/Interview/Collage-com-Interview-RVW13828319.htm Not trying to toot my own horn, but as an example, I'm typically "sought after"... i.e. if Joe's available, you just hire him. I have a breadth of senior software dev experience across tons of languages with dozens of tier 1 customers (real, household names.. you'd recognize every one of the two dozen I'd mention, and that'd just be scratching the surface), across startups and established companies. From a management perspective, I gave clear examples of my experiences handling not just great engineers (because that's easy), but also so-so engineers, and "bad" engineers... engineers that just decide to phone in their work. Actually, one of the approaches I gave sounded pretty interesting to one of my interviewers, and I'd not be surprised if they went and implemented it. This company is clearly focused on the wrong things during their interview process. It feels like if your code isn't "perfect" ... (a completely relative term.. as it's whatever 'perfect' means in terms of their standards), the rest doesn't matter. Any senior dev worth his salt I'm certain could pick up whatever it is they felt was "missing" in a day, and as I told them in my interview, I'd use my personal time doing it, because it's just what I love to do. Like the linked interview above, I too would have given it my all. I hope they see the feedback posted here and can learn from it as a company.