Like the others that have experienced the unprofessional engineering interview process. I felt cheated and used, after completing a production like tasks. I guess the reviewers had to read entire MSDN,scan through stackoverflow etc back to back, to come up with and find excuses in code submitted. No wonder it took time to get back. The guy must have been threatened by my candidacy, to the extent that the code review pin pointed what they did not ask for in requirements.
One question, do they actually plan before writing software? If they do, they will mark interview test based on what they ask for and not what they felt should have been done, the reason why we have the term acceptance criteria and definition of done in most development process. Candidates don't have telepathy, we cant read your minds, and if you are poor in describing what you want, you will be poor and biased in judging the outcome, and software failure it is. This worries me, and I am sure will worry experienced calibre and not cowboys.
Assuming you gave test scenarios (which most higly intelligent Orgs will do), then you can measure talent based on conformity. But you yourselves don't understand your own requirements which makes me deduced that, it's a knowledge grabbing exercise, how cheaply will you go, ripping innocent engineers. A good example of your internal issue is visible in the reviews given by your own engineers on how poorly you write code, and how your choice of technologies is aftecting you, how the monolith inhouse software is causing great confusion and killing creativity.
Some of these boys need to be groomed in the art of interviewing, sure they cant see beyond their own ego.
I already concluded that I will not proceed with them, due to imature, and lack of communication during the process.
High time to standup to these organisations threating engineering with no respect.