Questions in the tech screen (first step in the process) are algorithmically non challenging. I would categorize them as very very easy. The fist part of the coding problem is followed by the generalization of the initial implementation. They are looking at the speed and code organization. You have to finish both steps very strictly in 60 minutes. Otherwise, they will reject you with some excuse about lacking expression of the approach or having wasted time talking too much to avoid technical questions. (I doubt about the level of technical depth.) Don't waste a minute by diving deep with a past project, unless they make it clear that it is part of their evaluation. Every lost minute is an excuse for them to find something to reject you. I will categorize this as more of a "know the syntax of the chosen language by heart and use them cleanly" type interview. This is a junior/entry level evaluation at best with the bias of: "if they can do simple things fast and cleanly then they can grow into accomplishing more complex tasks for sure." Even if this is their assumption, I have never seen any company (big or small) ask these simple questions with no imposed expectation of an efficient solution and a data structure that makes things time effective for the expense of space complexity which is the purpose of algorithms which in turn is fundamental to computer science. This means use some heuristics or appear in front of us knowing some efficient search, sort algorithm so that we have clear understanding of your programming fundamentals skills around time and space complexity and the depth of your focus and interest to reach complex solutions with simple solutions. The interviewers at this initial step are relatively young and apparently have not much of experience in evaluating a candidate for a senior position. Or they only know how to qualify folks who are like them without objective evaluation of advanced computer science topics. I am not even touching on the lack of interest in learning about the candidate's ability of designing complex and scalable distributed systems or genuinely wondering about a senior candidate's behavioral skills. I am pretty sure they would be impressed if your code works at the first run, So they are not genuinely evaluating the seniority of the candidate at least at this initial step. On the other hand, they are very interested in learning about your other scheduled interviews. I interpret this as lack of confidence in evaluating a candidate and falling back to proven other success. (This kind of evaluation is against the federal law.)