Wirecutter interview questions

While I appreciated the opportunity to interview with The New York Times, I was extremely disappointed by how the process concluded. I applied for an entry-level role at the beginning of September, and over the course of several weeks, I participated in five interviews and completed a detailed take-home assignment, which required significant effort and time, around 4-5 hours and 10+ pages to meet what I believed were NYT’s high standards. After my final interview, where I received extremely positive feedback on my assignment, I followed up multiple times with the recruiter, only to have the timeline for a decision continually extended. Ultimately, the process ended with an automated rejection email, offering no feedback on my performance, reason for the rejection, or areas for growth. While I understand not every candidate can receive detailed feedback, the lack of acknowledgment for the time and effort I invested was disheartening. Taking unpaid time to complete assignments and attend interviews is a significant commitment, and receiving an impersonal rejection email after such an intensive process felt out of step with the progressive and thoughtful values I expected from The New York Times. I believe there’s an opportunity to improve this process by providing candidates with more transparent communication and, where possible, constructive feedback; especially after a process as thorough as this one.

A recruiter reached out shortly after I submitted the application for a phone screener, which went well, then put me in touch promptly with the hiring manager for another phone screener about week later. The hiring manager sent me an edit test a couple of days later. Things started to take a downturn after the edit test stage. The hiring manager confirmed receipt right away, then went silent until I reached out about three weeks later. She apologized for the delay, and the recruiter followed up with me shortly after to schedule a series of panel interviews with various staff members the following week. The panel interviews weren't necessarily difficult, but I didn't exactly get an enthusiastic vibe from most of the interviewers. They felt rushed and perfunctory, and the interviewers came across pretty distracted and disinterested. (I know what it's like to be asked to help interview a candidate when you've got a million other things to do, and that's the vibe I was picking up from these interactions.) I was told during the final interview that I should expect to hear back within a week. I also sent a follow-up courtesy email to the recruiters the day after the final interview, which received no acknowledgement. Then it was radio silence for almost two months, during which I periodically checked my application status, until I saw it had gone inactive. Apparently I didn't even deserve the bare minimum courtesy of an auto-rejection email to alert me of this. It was not only unprofessional to string-along and ghost a candidate who's made time to interview and complete an edit test on top of other obligations (including a full-time job) -- it was super disappointing coming from a company I thought would've been run better than this. However, I do feel like I ultimately dodged a bullet by not ending up at a company that showed it had no respect for my time or effort so early on in the process.