My experience on being hired consisted of the following: a phone screen, a coding assessment, and an on-site interview. The phone screening was pretty straight-forward, and I was asked typical questions: why I was looking for a career change, why I was interested in Health Catalyst, what I knew about the company, etc. Later that day I received a coding assessment, which I was determined to do well. I literally spent all weekend working and a better part of Monday working on it, to make sure I turned in good, quality code. It was exhausting, and I probably put at least 20 hours into it. I'm sure many people could do it much quicker, but I wanted to make it as good as I could. A few days later I received a call letting me know that I was invited to have an on-site interview. My interview consisted of 3 separate hour-long (or so) interviews. Each one of those was a two-on-one, with them asking a certain coding problem, background information, or technical questions. Each of them then left some time for me to ask questions about them and the company. I really enjoyed each of the people that interviewed me. They seemed very nice, were pleasant to talk to, and didn't ask any "gotcha" questions. There was no "good cop/bad cop" routine or anything like that. They were interested in learning about me and getting a feel for what I was like and how much I knew. They did a good job of selling me on the company and helping me see that the culture I had read about on glassdoor was in fact genuine. I was honestly felt that the small coding example I was given was a little too easy, and was expecting something a little more advanced. There were good, probing questions too, though, that allowed me to show what I knew. Overall, I felt the entire process was very fair, if not on the easier side. Ultimately, I was given an offer for a Software Engineer position, which I accepted.

They have a very standardized interview process. Phone call w HR, take-home tech skills assessment, panel interview. I did fine on the initial two phases, and comparing my code to other solutions up on GitHub, it was not hard to advance to the panel round. This is where the experience wasn't so good - the initial interviewer had technical difficulties and was at least 5 minutes late. Throughout that first hour, he mentioned time being short several times, and saved a tech coding question for the last 20 minutes. As I start to define some entity classes, he stops me and says not to, just focus on the algorithm because there isn't enough time. This essentially strips away a frame of reference for myself to use when implementing the algorithm - it wasn't a difficult problem, but the frequent reminders about time running out are not really conducive to do my best problem solving. It was unprofessional and threw me off, so much so that I mentioned it to the next two interviewers in the second hour. If you are trying to assess how a SE tries to solve a problem or implement an algorithm, let them work it out!