I interviewed for a one-year contract UI Developer role at EducationPlannerBC, and the process was unnecessarily long and excessive for a temporary position. It included five rounds: an initial call with the CTO, a 24-hour take-home coding challenge, and a detailed technical interview with a panel who questioned my submission, asked general technical questions, and conducted two live coding tasks. I cleared the assignment and performed well in the live React problem, explaining my logic even where there were minor syntactical issues. However, the technical panel appeared to consist of mid-level developers who didn’t seem equipped to evaluate someone with 12+ years of experience. Their focus felt narrow, with limited depth in architectural or senior-level thinking. Ultimately, I was rejected the very next day. For a short-term role, the five-stage process felt excessive, inefficient, and frankly disheartening — especially when senior candidates are evaluated by less experienced interviewers. A more streamlined and informed approach would benefit both applicants and the organization.