The interview followed the procedure described in the job description (30 minutes). Informational interview, ~3-hour homework assignment, three separate team member interviews (totalling 3 hours), and then ended in a 1-hour final interview. This is A LOT of unpaid time investment for a candidate, but the one positive is that they give this upfront. What they WON'T tell you is that candidate time is not a priority in their process. From multiple last-minute cancellations and rescheduling of interviews to the disjointed and ever-changing timelines that were only communicated when I persistently inquired about timelines, this was a mess. While homework assignments and multiple steps of interviews are expected, spending that much time with a team and role without feedback is sending a clear message--Your time isn't as valuable as their process. This is evident in the consistent delays in communication, the mismatch in target dates, and the ongoing need to track status updates from the recruitment and hiring teams. Also, this isn't an isolated incident. I have been through a similar and disjointed hiring situation with Code.org before. I invested time and energy, only to have the hiring team decide to pause the process. This pattern is disconcerting at best. While I was only in earlier stages for the prior role, I was still treated with a level of flippant behavior that was unprofessional and failed to acknowledge the invested time. The team simply paused hiring for this role. This level of flagrant behavior is disappointing and harming candidates, as our time is valuable. It makes me wonder if the practice of assigning extensive homework is a way to source information and ideas from candidates, only to have them disappear. And it's sad, because the conversations I had with the team were interesting--but interest can't pay for the time I invested. In the end, I was given a vague piece of feedback (that essentially could be given to anyone) and nothing further. If I had received even a small amount of personalized feedback or a simple acknowledgement of the time I had invested, it might not have been so bad. But I would STRONGLY caution serious candidates against putting in the investment here, despite the valuable, mission-aligned work.