**Interview Experience**
The interview process included an HR screening, a 1-hour live coding session, and a final interview with the technical director.
What stood out most is how much the process has recently shifted toward AI usage. In the live coding session, candidates are explicitly expected to rely on AI for the majority of the tasks (5 out of 7), with only a small portion completed without it.
However, the evaluation seems heavily skewed toward speed and AI usage rather than actual engineering quality. The ability to critically assess, validate, and refine AI-generated code appeared almost irrelevant compared to how quickly you could produce output. This raises concerns about how code quality and long-term maintainability are handled in practice.
The project presented was for a large client engagement with McKinsey, where the company is reportedly hiring a significant number of developers in Italy, with expectations of travel. This scale of hiring, combined with the delivery model, gives the impression of a volume-driven approach rather than a focus on building strong, sustainable engineering teams. It also raises legitimate questions about why such roles are not staffed closer to the client, suggesting potential cost-driven decisions.
Overall, the process felt impersonal and heavily oriented toward maximizing output. There was very little emphasis on the human aspect of engineering, collaboration, or craftsmanship. The experience gave the impression of an environment where developers are expected to act more as rapid AI operators than as thoughtful engineers.
**Cons**
* Strong bias toward speed over correctness
* Minimal focus on code quality and critical thinking
* Highly delivery-driven approach
* Limited attention to the human aspect of engineering