In the last few years, I've sat on both sides of the interview table several times. Recruitment in software engineering is a disaster from start to finish for all involved. As salaries have risen, it's only gotten worse.
On one side, there is a depressing number of people out there applying for programming jobs who effectively can't code. Their "skills" range from mindlessly repeating previous patterns they were told to use elsewhere without considering their applicability to the current context, all the way down to literally copy/pasting code chunks till the program appears to be working. Many of this group either don't care, or are blissfully unaware of what they don't know, or how little they know about subjects they believe themselves to be experts in.
This group is the majority of applicants. This is where the take home coding tests come from (which frankly, I also loathe).
On the other side, interviews are usually conducted by who-ever has been at an organisation the longest, and/or is most willing to put up with the shenanigans of interviewing the group mentioned above. This often means they're the ones most likely to enjoy catching people out, or who have some particular thing they like to grill people on. This is where you get the twenty-questions bingo style interviewing. Your recent interview sounds like one of these.
To add to this, there's a variety of situations where the applicant _should_ get the job, but they don't for reasons outside of the interview room. A manager wants to hire someone they know. Due to reshuffling, the job requirements have changed between publishing the job ad and interviewing. The budget was curtailed after the interview. Chances are, you'll never know the true story.
In addition, a large portion of developers don't ever go through the normal recruitment process. They'll do interviews, but they're recommended by colleagues, members of their meetup, friends of the above, or their IRC / Slack / Discord / etc group, and their interview process will reflect that. This is currently the best way to get a job. Often these groups are invite-only, and effectively invisiable.
In the middle of this maelstrom, are the few reasonably competent applicants applying for a job that is right for them, with a reasonable and fair interviewer.
--
Based on all the above, without knowing a thing about you, I'd be forced to conclude one of three options:
a) You've just been really unlucky. I've been there, it sucks.
b) You're not actually as good as you think you are. Usually this is when a programmer hits a certain level of expertise and stops learning anything new for some reason. Sometimes this is down to ego, sometimes it's because they've become the biggest fish in a small pond. The symptom seems to be a lack of curiosity, if not hostility, about novel or unexplored concepts.
c) The above observations are based on my incredibly biased view of my corner of the world, and don't match your reality at all.
On one side, there is a depressing number of people out there applying for programming jobs who effectively can't code. Their "skills" range from mindlessly repeating previous patterns they were told to use elsewhere without considering their applicability to the current context, all the way down to literally copy/pasting code chunks till the program appears to be working. Many of this group either don't care, or are blissfully unaware of what they don't know, or how little they know about subjects they believe themselves to be experts in.
This group is the majority of applicants. This is where the take home coding tests come from (which frankly, I also loathe).
On the other side, interviews are usually conducted by who-ever has been at an organisation the longest, and/or is most willing to put up with the shenanigans of interviewing the group mentioned above. This often means they're the ones most likely to enjoy catching people out, or who have some particular thing they like to grill people on. This is where you get the twenty-questions bingo style interviewing. Your recent interview sounds like one of these.
To add to this, there's a variety of situations where the applicant _should_ get the job, but they don't for reasons outside of the interview room. A manager wants to hire someone they know. Due to reshuffling, the job requirements have changed between publishing the job ad and interviewing. The budget was curtailed after the interview. Chances are, you'll never know the true story.
In addition, a large portion of developers don't ever go through the normal recruitment process. They'll do interviews, but they're recommended by colleagues, members of their meetup, friends of the above, or their IRC / Slack / Discord / etc group, and their interview process will reflect that. This is currently the best way to get a job. Often these groups are invite-only, and effectively invisiable.
In the middle of this maelstrom, are the few reasonably competent applicants applying for a job that is right for them, with a reasonable and fair interviewer.
--
Based on all the above, without knowing a thing about you, I'd be forced to conclude one of three options: a) You've just been really unlucky. I've been there, it sucks. b) You're not actually as good as you think you are. Usually this is when a programmer hits a certain level of expertise and stops learning anything new for some reason. Sometimes this is down to ego, sometimes it's because they've become the biggest fish in a small pond. The symptom seems to be a lack of curiosity, if not hostility, about novel or unexplored concepts. c) The above observations are based on my incredibly biased view of my corner of the world, and don't match your reality at all.