In agreement with other reviews of the interview process, I would describe Clipboard's process as exploitative, inefficient, and extremely time consuming. I made it through several stages of the process: a recorded video interview submission, written case study, an interview with the team lead, a second interview with another team member. I was informed that there would be two additional interview rounds after this (with the team director and co-CEO), which I did not advance to. Not only is this extremely excessive for an entry-level position (job posting stated 0-2 years of experience), but it's also very inefficient for both the applicant and hiring team. It makes me question the efficiency and decision-making processes of this company as a whole — e.g. why would a co-CEO (especially for a company with 500+ employees) have time to interview applicants for an entry-level position? I've been on the hiring team for several of my former workplaces (which were much smaller in size) and someone at the C-suite level would never be involved in hiring, especially for junior positions. I echo others' opinions on the case study task being exploitative. I luckily was able to pass the case study stage, and I received compliments on the ideas I presented in the case study during my interviews. However, after going through the hiring process, I have concerns about Clipboard using these case studies to get free labor/new ideas without compensating applicants for their time. Compensation for such time-intensive tasks is quite standard nowadays, and based on what I gathered re: Clipboard's financial status, they should be able to afford compensating candidates.