1) 30 min call with a recruiter 2) 60 min call with an engineer 3) Take home assignment - building a table with filtering functionality in React that reads from a mock API. Everything in the process went very smoothly up until the take home assignment round. For starters the mock API endpoint the engineering team provided was broken. It skips rows of data and also returns instances of empty data which in a real world application could potentially break things. When I pointed this out to the engineering team the engineer that replied gave a response that clearly indicated they didn't actually read the details of what I just sent them. I had to repeat myself twice. Normally I would chalk this up to just a simple oversight or miscommunication but read on… A few days after completing the assignment I received the feedback that “the data in your app is incorrect”' and that because of this they felt my work was more fit for a mid level role but not the senior role they had available. I was quite shocked by this as I had extensively tested the app before submitting. I followed up with the team and it turns out the reason they thought the app was broken was because they were expecting the totals displayed in the table to be generated from the entire available data-set. Because I had decided to paginate the data I felt it more prudent to display totals based on the data currently visible on the current page. I wrote about this decision in the ReadMe and also commented about it in the code itself. I politely responded by pointing out the sections of the ReadMe and the code comments that explained my apps totalling behavior and asked them to reconsider. A few days later I received word that they were not going to re-evaluate based on the new information. In the project directions provided, dv01 encourages candidates to “comment on your code as much as possible to help us understand any decisions that you make.” I found the situation ironic as the team that evaluated my project clearly did not read carefully any of the documentation or code I submitted. Instead they made a number of assumptions and built a decision around it. In engineering these situations happen (we are human after all). This is why an essential trait of a great engineering culture is a willingness to change course when presented with new information. As someone coming from a non-traditional background I felt quite marginalized by the whole experience. For a company that claims to want diversity their interview process is clearly biased towards people that already think like them