Uber · Primly Community

Uber interview rejection post-mortem, what I'd change if I got another shot

hardware_hugo · 4 replies

Failed an Uber L5 SWE loop two months ago. Writing this out partly for myself and partly because I couldn't find anything this specific when I was prepping.

The loop was: 1 phone screen (LC medium, 45 min), then 4-round virtual onsite: 2 coding rounds, 1 system design, 1 behavioral.

Where I think I failed:

Coding. Got a graph problem in one round that I recognized but fumbled the edge cases. I jumped to the solution too fast without talking through the problem structure. The interviewer tried to redirect me twice and I didn't pick up on it. In hindsight: Uber interviewers seem to use these redirects as signals of coachability. I plowed ahead. That probably hurt.

System design. I over-engineered. Asked to design a rate limiter, I went full distributed Kafka-backed monstrosity in the first 10 minutes. The interviewer kept asking 'what would you simplify here' and I kept adding complexity. At L5 Uber specifically, they want you to identify a simple correct design and then layer in scale considerations. Not start at maximum scale.

Behavioral. This one I thought went well, but the feedback I got (they gave some, which I appreciated) mentioned that my answers were 'high level.' I think I was telling stories at the project level rather than my individual contribution level. They want to understand what YOU specifically did, not what the team did.

Feedback I received: passed coding (I guess the graph round wasn't as bad as I thought), borderline on system design, not passed on behavioral. Surprising.

What I'd do differently: slow down on coding, stay leaner on system design for the first 15 minutes before scaling, and practice behavioral answers with 'I did' not 'we did' framing.

Might reapply in 6 months. Uber's re-application window is usually 6-12 months depending on role.

4 replies

finance_faye

The 'we vs I' thing in behavioral rounds kills more people than the coding does. Interviewers are trying to assess your specific impact. When you say 'we', I have no idea if you led the thing or just attended the meeting about it. Reframe every STAR answer: what problem did YOU identify, what specifically did YOU do, what result did YOUR work drive.

director_dee

The coachability signal in coding rounds is underappreciated. When an interviewer redirects you, they're not necessarily saying you're wrong. Sometimes they want to see if you update. Not updating is a signal I weight heavily. It suggests someone who'll be hard to work with when requirements change.

quietquit_quincy

That's humbling but makes complete sense. I'll be thinking about that one for a while.

sec_sasha

The system design over-engineering thing is a classic trap. The question 'design a rate limiter' at senior level is often testing whether you can correctly scope the problem and deliver a clean simple answer, not whether you know all the distributed patterns. Starting simple and letting the interviewer push you toward complexity is usually the better move.