Context:
I've been programming since I was about 14, I've done well in my industry and I'm trying to change over to HFT. I've got a weak profile and I know it, I've sent out about 100 applications I've only gotten 2 answers so far. I tend to be brutally honest with myself and I am just here to get a reality check.
The company I've been interviewing with is called HeadlandsTech and I made it through 4 rounds of technical test. In my estimation I aced 3 of them, 100% out of a 100% execution and did maybe 75% on the 3rd out of the four. After the 3rd one I felt like maybe I wouldn't get a follow up, but I did and I was very glad for it.
The fourth interview was easy, and I implemented what was asked quickly, explained my reasoning and offered improvements or considerations in a real scenario. The interviewer seemed pleased and it was all around good.
I got an email 1 day later that I would not be preceeding. This was quite a shock to me and I in the end I called their recruiting manager, who told me that I did not meet their technical bar. I restrained myself and told her quite politely that I had issues believing this, given that I really had aced the question given. It was a task I've done many times, and I've spent quite some time with various approaches and I discussed this with the interviewer.
She told me the best she could do was to ask them for their feedback and that she would forward anything she got to me. I said ok and the call ended. 10-20 minutes later I got an email that they are unable to give an feedback at all to candidates.
The fact that this person was so willing to lie to my face, and do something else when there was a written doesn't sit right with me and after looking it up more online, there was some hinting that certain companies use weak candidates as training for their interviewers. This fits with my experience, all the people who interviewed with me was very junior in the company and many of them asked very overlapping questions, seeming like there had been no coordination or red thread in the interview process.
As I said, I am a weak candidate from my CV, but I tend to be honest with myself and my performances. I aced that last interview and I am feeling like I was given a test that I scored a 100% on, and now I'm learning that I was unpaid QA.
I am really looking for honest feedback if this is actually a thing, or if I'm just doing wishful thinking to avoid having my ego hurt. Any feedback is welcome, thank you.
First of all, no, it's not a common practice to train on bad candidates specifically. I have never heard of this and it doesn't make sense to me. Given how many candidates with solid resumes do not pass interviews, there's no need to waste time on obvious no-fits for training purposes. Many companies don't do any any sort of interview training. Those that do, in my experience, train via multiple rounds of shadowing.
Regarding feedback, almost no companies provide it. Perhaps the recruiter was new, perhaps the hiring team thought you won't take feedback well, perhaps something else. I don't think jumping to "willing to lie to my face" is the right way to think about it. Also, just because the interviewers were pleasant doesn't mean you were doing well. Perhaps there was a lot more to the problem and you weren't going to solve it all on time - again, hard to say, but you certainly can't judge by the interviewer's demeanor. When I was hiring, I wanted all the candidates to have a positive experience, even when they did not do well.
Finally, I'll be honest - you do not come off very well based on this message. It is extremely adversarial, makes a ton of assumptions, and has unrealistic expectations. This approach in fact is a lot less likely to result in feedback, because the company likely picked up on it and is not interested in debating the results with you. The decision has been made, I would suggest taking a breath and moving on. Acing the technical part is absolutely not a guarantee of hire. I have passed on brilliant candidates when the team gave multiple indicators that the person would be difficult to work with.
To be clear, I'm making assumptions here as well and it could very well be that something else is going on. But it would serve you well to introspect a bit and approach the process in a more positive, or at least detached, manner, without making it personal.
Given the choice between a technically superior but difficult candidate and a weaker but collaborative one, most teams will choose the latter or pass on both. In my experience, it's more productive to mentor a coachable candidate than hire someone who dissents at every turn. In a high-performing team, personality fit and other soft skills matter significantly more than many candidates realize.
This could be unrelated to your performance though, maybe they went with another candidate, maybe they pivoted and don't need the position they were hiring for, or maybe the CTO wants to hire their nephew. The takeaway in my opinion is to reflect and think of any shortcomings. If you can't think of any, accept and move on.
But could be different in your case. Did you already search for interview experiences for that specific company?
First of all, recruitment and processes are random, have you interviewed enough? Most people old enough have interviewed for 100+ companies, and with experience you learn that doing well doesn't mean you'll get a job.
We're also in some sort of tech recession for non-AI jobs. Many companies keep their job positions posted and interview people but don't hire them, as they'd like to keep recruiters and the team busy. I know this because I'm in a leadership position and talk with many colleagues who are also in other companies leadership position. (not that my company is doing that, though)
There's another reason, you might think you have ace'd it, but the interviewer might have different expectations, also, just by solving the solution or problem it doesn't mean you are fit for the company, sometimes we think we aced it, but they expected a different solution that you didn't know. Dunning kruger effect?
You've mentioned yourself that you've done 75% in a few, this might be enough for they to chose a different candidate.
Also, if your CV is weak, they might have changed their minds, not every company wants to train people, management could have pushed a different direction to the recruiting process or just the budget could have been closed.
To sum up, just move on and don't waste time on this, maybe focus on studying more? Nothing in life is guarantee'd, you might study years and never get that HFT job, or you might get it. That's life. Thinking about it won't get you the job, what you can do is practice more until you make it.
Also, if you are in Europe use the GDPR as a starting point to ask them to provide any information they have on you including interview feedback, they must comply.
And third and don't get this in the wrong way but you mention several times in this post that you are "a weak candidate from my CV", are you sure you are not giving this vibe to your potential employers?
Honestly, interviewing is hard and there is a lot of asymmetry between candidates and companies specially on this market conditions, my suggestion is (I know it will sound cheesy) but fake it until you make it.
That said, sometimes companies may take a flyer on someone, sometimes people just bomb interviews, sometimes it's just a very bad fit. Learn from it and keep going!