Real, anonymous reports from people who interviewed for Data Scientist at Aetna, newest first and distilled into what to expect across the loop.
After a recruiter phone screen, I moved into a technical phone screen that used CoderPad for SQL. The questions felt pretty straightforward and I wasn’t pushed into heavy coding; the tone across the early rounds leaned more toward statistical thinking than engineering depth. A short on-site followed with a couple of people from different teams, and we spent most of the time talking through how I approached stats and analysis rather than building anything complex.
I went through a pretty classic multi-round loop: a recruiter conversation first, then about three rounds of interviews that blended technical and experiential discussion. I talked through my projects and previous work in detail, and then the interviewer(s) pulled in machine learning topics and testing concepts—especially around A/B testing and applying ML in a business context. There was also a case-study style component where the focus was on how I solved the problem, not just what final model or metric I landed on.
The interview process typically begins with a recruiter phone screen, followed by multiple technical rounds that may include a virtual on-site. Candidates reported varying timelines, with some experiencing delays in communication and follow-up after interviews.
Candidates faced technical interviews that included SQL and Python questions, often conducted on platforms like CoderPad, focusing on statistical concepts and practical applications rather than deep coding challenges.
Many interviews featured case-study style questions where candidates were evaluated on their problem-solving approach and reasoning rather than just the final outcomes, emphasizing clarity in communication.
Candidates were often asked to discuss their previous projects and experiences in detail, with interviewers interested in how candidates framed their work and the trade-offs considered in their analyses.
The difficulty of interviews was generally described as moderate, but some candidates noted that the pacing could be intense, particularly during virtual on-sites where rapid-fire questioning left little room for discussion.
Candidates reported mixed experiences with communication, noting that while interviews were often polite, follow-up communication could be delayed or absent, leading to frustration about the overall process.