Real, anonymous reports from people who interviewed for Software Engineer at State Street, newest first and distilled into what to expect across the loop.
My first step was a short phone call that felt unusually straightforward. It lasted about 10 minutes, and the questions stayed pretty high level—what projects I’d worked on, what obstacles I’d run into when collaborating in a team, and how I’d worked through those problems. It felt like more of a screening for fit than anything tricky.
After a recruiter screening, my process moved fairly quickly into two technical stages. In the first one, it was essentially a vendor-style assessment focused on core Java and backend fundamentals, with Spring Boot and SQL. I was asked to build a RESTful API using Spring Boot, then implement equals and hashCode for a POJO, and write a SQL query.
The interview process typically begins with a brief phone call focused on assessing cultural fit and discussing past projects, often with straightforward questions about collaboration and problem-solving experiences. This stage is generally low-pressure and serves as a preliminary screening.
Candidates can expect multiple technical rounds that assess core programming skills, particularly in Java, Spring Boot, and SQL, often involving practical coding tasks and scenario-based problem-solving. The difficulty can vary, but candidates should be prepared for both theoretical questions and hands-on coding challenges.
Behavioral interviews are common, with a focus on past experiences using the STAR method to discuss how candidates have handled stress, resolved conflicts, and worked within teams. This aspect is crucial for evaluating soft skills and alignment with company values.
The overall interview structure tends to be straightforward, often involving a sequence of technical and HR rounds, but candidates have reported variability in scheduling and communication, which can impact their confidence and experience. Some candidates noted a lack of clarity about what to expect in advance.
The difficulty of the interviews is generally described as average to medium, with some candidates feeling that the assessments were not as rigorous as expected, leading to uncertainty about their performance. Candidates should be prepared for a range of question types, from basic to more complex problems.
Candidates often leave the process without clear feedback, and many report not receiving offers despite feeling they performed adequately. The overall impression is that the evaluation may not always align with their expectations, leading to a sense of ambiguity about their fit for the role.