I was wrong about the current state of the US tech job market, and I only realized it after I started interviewing. The fact that I'm admitting that I started interviewing already means that you guys know I've resigned at my current place of employment and I've accepted an offer elsewhere.

But I really just want to reflect on the entire process because I have a lot of thoughts, and I want to, you know, use my platform to communicate those thoughts with you guys.

So let's actually start off with some context. I've written these notes down here. It's almost midnight on a Friday.

I'm wearing a tank top, but let's get into it, guys. Around four months ago, I started interviewing.

I started interviewing because I wanted to look for new opportunities, and as I was interviewing, or actually before I was interviewing, I came into it with the thought process of, "The market's great.

I don't know what people online are talking about." As you guys know, I'm a very online person. I have a YouTube channel where I talk about software engineering religiously.

I'm on Reddit looking through forums, um, you know, hearing people complain, and I thought to myself, "They're just lazy." I'm not afraid to admit it.

I'm being vulnerable with you guys. I'm telling you how I really thought it was.

I was, I was, um, what's the word? Boomer-pilled, I guess. So I thought you just have to pull yourself up by your bootstraps, hunker down, and everything will be okay.

There's a lot of different problems out there, and that's really what I want to talk about.

So now that you guys understand the context, let's get into my own personal observations.

The first thing that I think is broken with the current US tech job market is that companies are not filtering candidates properly.

CS career students are going to disagree with me on this because in my opinion, LeetCode doesn't measure whether or not you will excel at the position you're applying for.

It measures how well you can test in correlation to how much free time you have. Let me tell you what I mean by that.

Let's say you currently have a job, you're in your mid-20s, 30s, 40s, you're looking to interview elsewhere.

You might be dissatisfied at work, or maybe you just think there might be better opportunities for you, you know, out there. Essentially, you need to study while maintaining your current place of employment.

So you're working 8 to 9 hours a day. By the time you get home, you might have other obligations.

You have a partner, maybe you have kids, maybe you have hobbies, maybe you, you know, you're just playing video games 'cause you're tired.

By the time you're done all that, it's 9:00 p.m. Are you really in the mood to grind through inverting a binary search tree?

Are you really in the mood to figure out how to find an element in a rotated sorted array? Probably not. And that's why I say that CS career students are probably going to be more adamant against this point than I am because they're not in industry.

They have three to maybe five hours a day of classes at most, and then it's essentially a couple of projects and free time.

And LeetCode tests how much free time you have to problem-solve.

That's about it in my opinion. All right, let's talk about very something very similar.

And I think that nowadays, companies expect too much from too many people. What do I mean by that? I've gone through interviews where you have multiple tech rounds that are broken into networking, computer architecture, concurrency, etc., etc., etc., etc. These are important topics, but to expect a candidate to remain sharp on these topics for that long of a time, I just don't think it's very reasonable.

I think that companies are not very comfortable just not knowing a lot about a candidate, so they test every single faculty of his or her reasoning, and that causes candidates to burn out.

Think about it like this: let's say you're a very strong Spartan, and you're a, you know, you're a gladiator in some sort of ring, and you get three lions thrown at you.

You know, three rounds of lions: kill Lion A, kill Lion B, kill Lion C.

You can probably do that if you're very well prepared and you're the top gladiator in all of Rome.

But can the top gladiator of all of Rome go through 30 rounds of lions? No. It doesn't matter how smart he is, eventually he's going to get tired, and eventually he's going to die.

And that's what's happening to candidates in interviews.

They're metaphorically dying because they're being given so many tech rounds, and they need to remain so sharp and brush up on things so quickly that it's virtually impossible to, you know, do so and excel in the way that companies are looking for you to excel.

That brings me to the actual rounds themselves. I've interviewed at a bunch of different companies. The companies that I really like are quick they iterate very quickly.

So, you'll have, you know, five rounds. They might be over the course of two to three weeks at most for those five rounds.

Other companies that, in my opinion, don't do things well, and this is the majority of companies in the US tech job market, which is why it's such a mess.

They will have eight rounds over the course of six weeks. Asking somebody to remain sharp for six weeks is a very difficult ask.

That's asking them to brush up on whatever they need to prepare for behavioral, technical, et cetera, for at least an hour a day for those entire six weeks. And that's a big time commitment that a lot of not a lot of people can make.

And some of the best candidates out there just don't have that, the ability to do so, that time commitment to give to these companies that they're asking for too much, and they're stretching their rounds over over a period of time.

Let's also kind of just get to something a little more basic. Not a lot of people are hiring.

I don't know why people are painting rosy pictures of the state of the US economy. If tech is struggling, there's a lot of other people struggling out there.

And there might be, for example, one opening to hire one person, and there might be 3,000 applicants in three days. So, you you're facing 2,999 other people.

From that perspective, it'll really blackpill you. It'll make you feel like, oh, there's no point of of applying.

I understand that it is depressing. It's depressing because you are now comparing yourself to others instead of focusing on yourself.

And that's going to put you in a state of mind that makes you anxious. And as a candidate, the last thing you want to be is anxious, I think, on the front end in terms of rounds.

Candidates nowadays in the US job market don't get enough clarity.

They don't get enough clarity. What do I mean by that? A company will say you have a technical round. You'll ask, "Hey, what type of technical round?

Pair programming, computer architecture, concurrency, uh, high-level discussion about my experience?" They'll say, "It's a technical round." That's like a professor saying, "You have an assignment, but I'm not going to tell you what you have to do.

Do you want me to fail?" You know, how how am I supposed to do a good job if you're not telling me what I'm being tested on?

Now, a good company will say, "You're doing a a LeetCode question." That's all they really need to provide.

And I've interviewed at companies that are like that, and that's great. But a lot of companies are just very, very set in their ways as to not telling a candidate how they need to prepare, and that only hurts, in my opinion, the company itself.

Because what will happen is a candidate will say, "Well, there's 40 technical topics that can be asked about. I can be asked about 100 different things. I'm just going to study them all and have a surface-level understanding." And that's not the best way to test a candidate's knowledge and their ability to ability to retain info, because then they're tested on concepts that they might have not even studied for, which don't really reflect how well they're able to study and what they know.

Or they're tested on a topic that they've studied maybe 30 minutes for at most. And you're not going to have a good time if that's how much you've studied for a topic that you're asked about in an interview.

Okay, that's the front end of the rounds. Now, the back end. The back end of the round is essentially the feedback part.

So, if you're doing great, great. You have good feedback, you're pushed through. But where companies in the US market really struggle is they just don't give great feedback.

The worst thing they will do to you is ghost you. Now, the fact that people are ghosting candidates in 2024 still amazes me to this day.

A candidate spent potentially hours, if not weeks, preparing for multiple rounds, and you can't even tell them why they weren't pushed forward or like what the issue was.

That to me is shocking. It's not the way you you treat people. So, you'll spend all this time and then you just want to know, okay, you don't want to pass me through, great, but at least tell me what I could have done better.

That will only make the candidate pool better, and it will only increase the likelihood that people will want to apply at that company because if you ghost a candidate, it reflects poorly on your firm's image.

They're going to talk to other people, and other people are just going to say, well, it might not even be worth applying if that's the way that they treat other candidates, right?

So, it's not a really good reflection on the culture or the firm's image.

Not only do I want to hear about your guys' opinions or comments or thoughts about what I just said, but I also want to leave you with this: in 2023, I interviewed at multiple companies, three months of my time, and it didn't work out.

I got very far, but I just ended up landing an offer, and that's okay.

because in 2024 I was able to land more than one offer. 2023 made me stronger for 2024. The worst case, really guys, is if you currently have a job, you'll continue working your current job.

That's really the worst case. If you currently have a job, you'll become more aware as to where you rank in the job market and the certain skills you might need to learn in order to perform better next time.

There's always next year, there's always the next couple of months.

Heck, there's always new industries, right? You might be interviewing for Quant, but you might say, hey, I might try Big Tech, or I might try a Fortune 500 company, or I might try a different field.

I might try going back to school. I realize, hey, I want to actually learn something else, I want to do something different.

So see it as a learning opportunity as opposed to a trial that you failed.

It's a door that closes, but like they say, another door, maybe two doors will open because you'll now start to realize things about yourself that you haven't realized before entering this process.

Some of you might come out with offers, some of you might just learn a ton about where you rank in the job market and, you know, you might say, well, I've actually realized that I really like working where I currently work.

That happens too. I've had friends that that's happened to.

If you guys would like to speak to me one-on-one, maybe you want me to review your resume, Calendly link in the description box below, guys.

If you'd like to watch this video early, I release this video early to my patrons. Patreon link in the description box below, guys.

And if you guys would like to see my life behind the scenes, I post nothing Quant. Don't message me about quant.

I will not respond. People keep messaging me. My Instagram has nothing to do with quant trading. You can follow me, my life behind the scenes on my Instagram, The Coding Jesus.

Link in the description box below, guys. Thanks for watching this video. Cheers.

The US tech job market is worse than I thought.

Coding Jesus (getcracked.io)

My initial perception of the US tech job market was largely positive, leading me to believe that **online complaints were unfounded and simply indicative of laziness**. As someone deeply immersed in the software engineering community online, I initially thought people just needed to 'pull themselves up by their bootstraps.' However, my own recent interviewing experience profoundly changed this view, forcing me to admit I was wrong.

Broken Filtering: The Flaws of LeetCode and Over-testing

One of the most significant issues in the current US tech job market is that **companies are not filtering candidates properly**. LeetCode, a common interview tool, primarily measures one's ability to test and the amount of free time available for preparation, rather than actual job performance. This disproportionately disadvantages experienced professionals with existing work and life commitments who struggle to dedicate hours to studying complex algorithms after a full workday.

Beyond LeetCode, companies often **expect too much from candidates, subjecting them to multiple, exhaustive technical rounds** covering diverse topics like networking, computer architecture, and concurrency. While these topics are important, expecting candidates to remain sharp on all of them for prolonged periods is unreasonable. This intense scrutiny, akin to a gladiator facing 30 rounds of lions, leads to candidate burnout and metaphorical 'death' in the interview process, as it becomes virtually impossible to excel under such pressure.

The Arduous Interview Process: Length, Lack of Clarity, and Ghosting

The duration of interview processes is a major deterrent, with many companies stretching eight rounds over six weeks. **Expecting candidates to remain sharp and prepared for such an extended period is a massive time commitment** that many, including some of the best talents, simply cannot afford. This lengthy process is a significant part of why the US tech job market feels so dysfunctional.

Compounding the challenge, candidates often **lack sufficient clarity regarding interview rounds**. When asked about the nature of a 'technical round,' companies frequently offer vague responses, hindering proper preparation. This lack of guidance forces candidates to study a vast array of topics superficially, which is an ineffective way to assess their true knowledge and ability, ultimately harming the company more than the candidate.

Finally, **companies struggle with providing meaningful feedback**, with 'ghosting' being an astonishingly common practice even in 2024. After candidates invest hours, if not weeks, in preparation, failing to provide constructive feedback or even an explanation for rejection is disrespectful and reflects poorly on the firm's image. This practice not only discourages future applicants but also misses an opportunity to improve the overall candidate pool.

The Broader Landscape: Limited Openings and Mental Toll

Contrary to optimistic portrayals of the US economy, the tech sector is struggling, leading to **scarce job openings and intense competition**. It's not uncommon to see a single position attract thousands of applicants within days, which can be incredibly disheartening and anxiety-inducing for candidates. This environment fosters a mindset of comparison rather than self-focus, further exacerbating stress during the job search.

Reframing the Job Search: A Learning Opportunity

Despite the challenges, a job search should be viewed as a **learning opportunity rather than a trial that can be failed**. For those currently employed, the worst-case scenario is simply continuing in their existing role, while gaining valuable insights into their market standing and identifying areas for skill development. Every interview experience, regardless of outcome, offers a chance for self-discovery and the potential for new doors, or even entirely new industries, to open.

Initial Misconception and Context of Job Search

Speaker initially underestimated the difficulty of the US tech job market.

Speaker resigned from their previous job and accepted a new offer.

The job search process began approximately 4 months prior.

Speaker initially believed online complaints about the job market were due to laziness.

Speaker acknowledges their initial naive perspective.

Problems with the Current US Tech Job Market

Companies are not effectively filtering candidates; LeetCode is criticized as a flawed metric.

LeetCode scores reflect available time for practice rather than actual job skills.

Companies demand excessive knowledge across various technical areas.

Interview processes are often too long and demanding.

Low hiring rates and high competition create a discouraging environment.

Lack of Clarity and Poor Feedback in the Interview Process

Candidates lack sufficient information about interview content.

Inadequate preparation due to lack of clarity from companies.

Companies' lack of transparency hurts their own hiring process.

The prevalence of ghosting candidates is criticized as unprofessional.

Lack of feedback prevents candidates from improving.

Lessons Learned and Advice for Job Seekers

Speaker shares their experience of improved success in 2024 compared to 2023.

Maintaining current employment is the worst-case scenario.

Encourages viewing the process as a learning opportunity.

The experience may lead to self-discovery and career clarity.

The US tech job market is worse than I thought.

Scripts