I applied for the mid-level Ruby on Rails engineer position. For reference, the job requirements are: “We believe that being a kind person who elevates the rest of the team is just as valuable as writing great code. You have strong problem-solving skills and experience working on important functionality for a cloud-based product. You are humble, eager to learn, and always willing to help others learn as well. You want to work with people who enjoy picking up a problem and solving it, regardless of the technologies and techniques involved. Most of our features involve writing significant Ruby on Rails code, so you have meaningful past experience working in a Rails codebase. We also write a lot of React, but we are happy to help you learn that part on the job.” — The first two interviews with Aha! were great. The first round was with an engineering team lead, and the second was with the director of engineering. They both asked Rails questions, and the director asked a few general questions about how I would approach problems. They both seemed very cool and I would have enjoyed working with them. The third interview, with the CTO, went very poorly. It went off the Rails (heh, had to). It started out okay - very conversational and some basic questions about my past experience. Then, he asked some CS questions. The line of questioning was confusing and, in my opinion, does not line up with what the job description advertises that they are looking for. He asked me to explain how I would implement a database index. In reality, I would look up the best type of index for the job, and apply it in a migration, or something like that. I could explain the basics about different types of indexes. However, this was not what he wanted. He kept repeating the question (even though clearly I was not getting to the answer he wanted), even going as far as to tell me that I was restating the same thing in different ways. I’m honestly still not sure what he was looking for. At one point I made a comparison to an index in a book, and then he kept asking me how an index in a book actually worked… I just could not get to the answers he wanted. Somehow he eventually moved on from that question, and then got into the efficiency of a hash. At this point I was very off-kilter. Knowing the benefits and drawbacks of a hash were not enough - as far as I could tell, he wanted me to explain how a hash works in memory. I could not do this coherently on the spot. He cut me off, cut off the interview mid-interview, and said I don’t have a strong enough CS background for what they are looking for. I’m wondering if he normally cuts off men mid-sentence, mid-interview, to tell them they aren’t good enough? Or does he just do this to women? He was condescending and smug. It was shocking. I also wonder why they even bothered to interview me. It’s quite clear from my resume that I do not have a CS background, but that’s what the CTO clearly wants. My opinion is that the job description does not match what they actually want. The job description does not mention computer science and has no degree requirement. If I had known that a strong CS background was so important to have, I would not have wasted everyone's time by applying and going through the interview process. I suspect that Aha! has removed requirements for CS from their job descriptions to widen the applicant pool, with no intention of hiring people that don’t have that background. I don't think that this description accurately reflects what they’re looking for at Aha!: "We believe that being a kind person who elevates the rest of the team is just as valuable as writing great code." Clearly the CTO does not take these values seriously. The CTO might consider looking deeply into his individual hiring practices or remove himself from the interview process so that teams might be able to hire candidates with skills based in reality. Most companies realize that practical knowledge, experience, and attitude are more important for impactful developers than deep knowledge of CS concepts.