Intuit Staff Software Developer interview questions

Positive Experience: I appreciated the initial outreach from the recruiter on LinkedIn, who clearly explained the interview process. The phone screening was well-organized, and I enjoyed the technical challenges (e.g., LeetCode-style questions). The recruiter's prompt communication after the phone screen was also commendable. The onsite interview experience was generally positive, with a well-structured format (Craft demo, System design, deep dive, and Management rounds). I was impressed by the technical expertise of the team members I met. Areas for Improvement: However, I experienced significant delays and lack of communication after the onsite interview. Specifically: - I was told to expect a decision within 2 business days, but didn't receive any update until I sent multiple follow-ups (4 business days later). - The Toronto recruiter failed to acknowledge my follow-ups, which was disappointing. - When I finally received a response, there was minimal feedback provided. Suggestions: To improve the candidate experience: 1. Establish clearer communication channels and response timelines. 2. Ensure recruiters acknowledge candidate follow-ups, even if it's just to confirm receipt. 3. Provide more detailed feedback to candidates, especially after investing 7 hours in the interview process. Overall: While the technical team was impressive, the onsite recruiter's communication (or lack thereof) left a negative impression. I hope this feedback will help refine your interview process.

Overall a big waste of time due to the take home assignment. I was always in the process of rejecting any take home assignments. Now I feel bad that I said yes to their process and wasted so much time. The very first round is a craft demo, which is a take home problem followed by a design interview. The problem statement stressed the importance of working code as well as a design doc with end to end design. But the interview I had later did not go into the code part at all. Before I could explain the design doc, the panel dived deep into a small part. I explained choices at each part and explained the tradeoffs for each. The interviewers only wanted to listen to the exact solutions that they had in mind. They also gave a feedback that I'm not confident to stand by my design instead of giving different possibilities, when I was simply giving pros & cons of each approach and I did have a choice. When I explained how the data would be partitioned, they took issue with how the term partitioning itself that what I'm explaining is not that. But partitioning is an overloaded term and the explanation I was using was the one used in standard textbooks like DDIA.