Real, anonymous reports from people who interviewed for Software Engineer at SAS, newest first and distilled into what to expect across the loop.
After a recruiter step, I ended up going through a pretty structured virtual sequence. First I had an online aptitude + technical test made up entirely of multiple-choice questions, and once I cleared it I was shortlisted for the interview rounds.
My process started with two back-to-back conversations: a 30-minute recruiter interview, then a 30-minute meeting with the hiring manager and team manager. After that, I sat in an almost three-hour session with the team and the team manager. It felt like the longest part was the live discussion rather than any single test.
The interview process typically involves multiple structured rounds, starting with a recruiter screen, followed by technical interviews focused on data structures, algorithms, and project discussions. Candidates can expect a mix of technical and behavioral questions across these rounds.
Technical interviews often emphasize data structures and algorithms, as well as core programming concepts, with some candidates experiencing coding challenges or case-study presentations that require practical application of their skills.
Behavioral interviews are a significant part of the process, with interviewers using STAR-style questions to assess candidates' past experiences and cultural fit within the team. Candidates should prepare to discuss their projects and how they align with the company's values.
Candidates generally report that communication throughout the interview process is active and clear, although some experienced delays or a lack of feedback after interviews, which can lead to uncertainty about their performance.
The overall atmosphere of interviews is described as positive and conversational, with interviewers often appearing friendly and engaged, which helps to alleviate stress during the process.
Despite many candidates feeling confident about their performance during interviews, several did not receive offers, leading to reflections on potential misalignments in expectations or criteria that were not clearly communicated.