Interview process was smooth and informative. It took around one months from beginning to end. 1- interview with recruiter. 2- interview with team lead. 3- take home assignment. 9 questions in total, 7 theoretical and 2 coding question. 4- feedback for take home assignment. 5- interview with the team. 6- reference check. They asked for four references, two pas manager and two colleague. 7- offer.

Online code challenge, take home exercise, general interview with hiring manager, interview with tech lead, interview with data science lead. The recruiting process itself was very organized and my recruiter arranged all of the steps quickly and kept me informed during the whole process. After not being selected for the first position I had applied for, she even passed my file to another team which I felt was courteous and what you expect from a professional who is dedicated to her job. Eventually I was provided with detailed feedback as to why I was not selected, which was a pleasant surprise and a sign of transparency. My interview with the first team and all but one of the interviewers of the second team, was very pleasant and fair. In contrary, my interview with the tech lead of the second team was awful. The first question I was asked was "I don't care why you've switched your field to web development (I've a MSc in mechanical engineering), but tell me how did you get to have a leadership role with so little experience in your previous positions?" I shrugged that question off as genuine curiosity, but after receiving my feedback I am inclined to believe it was a rhetorical question, as it was filled with subjective opinions and factually incorrect info: e.g. was "candidate doesn't like OOP" I assume because I had told them that I had tried Java 5 in my undergrad and didn't like it and that I like FP (I was never explicitly asked if I like OOP in general; I actually do enjoy coding modern C++ *shrugs*), another one "When asked what he liked to work on, he said that he likes to work on challenging problems, and was clear he did not want to do boring things, but did not mention how he would participate to the unavoidable boring tasks, or who would do them." I had never mentioned I will not participate in boring tasks, but somehow it was clear to him. Or that "Very little practical experience. Mostly javascript frontend with a little backend." while I have more back end experience in production and the position I was interviewing for was explicitly asking for experience with node, so not sure how my experience with JavaScript was a bad thing! Anyways, I had never had someone question my personal integrity in an interview and after receiving feedback, was actually relieved I didn't have to work with that team. However, the rest of my experience with Unity was positive enough to say overall it was a neutral experience. Another issue I had was that I had spent a whole weekend working on the take home exercise, which has many optional tasks, and overall no more than fifteen to twenty minutes was spent reviewing it, where I simply explained the folder/file structure. No digging into the code, no questions about why I made certain decisions, or what trade offs I considered, or how I would extend my code to add new functionalities, etc. So I felt I wasted a whole weekend working on a task that contributed little to the overall interview process. I suggest Unity trains the interviewers properly so candidates can have more fair and objective assessments.