Epam Rejected !

I recently interviewed for a Lead Data Engineer role at EPAM, and honestly the experience left me quite unsettled. With around seven years of experience, I went in expecting a proper deep-dive discussion — especially around Spark optimization, performance tuning, code quality practices, testing strategies, deployment patterns, Databricks ecosystem, Unity Catalog governance, and architectural decision-making.

However, the questions were quite basic — mainly around Catalyst Optimizer and Adaptive Query Execution. I answered them comfortably, but I kept expecting the conversation to move toward more advanced technical depth. That never really happened. There was no coding discussion, no architecture scenarios, no real exploration of practical optimization challenges — which is usually expected at a lead level.

The interview was scheduled for about 90 minutes but wrapped up in roughly 30 minutes. Toward the end, the interviewer even mentioned that things looked positive and hinted I would likely move to the next round. Naturally, I felt confident afterward.

Later, when I followed up with HR, I was told the feedback wasn’t positive. That disconnect between what was communicated during the interview and the actual outcome was confusing.

Another dimension to this is the effort candidates invest — especially when managing long notice periods like 90 days. Convincing recruiters itself is a process, and preparing for interviews takes serious time and mental energy. When interviews feel rushed or not fully engaged, it can be discouraging.

I’ve also heard repeatedly that EPAM interviews are usually very thorough and technically intense, which made this particular experience even more unexpected. What stayed with me most wasn’t rejection itself — that’s part of the process — but the feeling that the interaction didn’t reflect the seriousness of preparation from the candidate side.

If anyone is part of interview panels, one request from the candidate perspective: candidates often balance jobs, notice periods, and preparation stress. Interviews might be routine sessions for panelists, but for candidates they carry significant weight, preparation, and emotional investment. Panel freshness and engagement really do make a difference.