Is that unreasonable? I recently took a job where the interview process was over 6 weeks. Basically one hour a week speaking with another person on the team. I honestly enjoyed it as a candidate, it wasn't a huge ask on my part (easily to do one hour a week than take a PTO/sick day to interview) and I felt like I was able to "live" while interviewing and working too.
If it's 9 hours in one day that's a lot, but if it's over 3 or 4 days it seems reasonable to me.
I will say the worse interview I ever done was for Capital One. It's literally an entire 8 hour day where you get ask the same questions with different groups of people, scheduled with no breaks (no 10 minutes between sessions is not a sufficient break), getting ask LC-esque questions twice, system design, and 5 different behavioral sessions. Worst of all I never spoke with a single person who would be on my team, to make matters worse Capital One doesn't exactly pay well. It's a very average company, with average salaries, and average benefits.
My interview at Meta was easier and more straight forward, it felt like they actually cared about my time as a candidate whereas Capital One puts you through the meat grinder and forces you into their terms.
> If it's 9 hours in one day that's a lot, but if it's over 3 or 4 days it seems reasonable to me.
We ask candidates to give us a schedule of when they are available, and then schedule against that. Some folks would prefer a long gauntlet all in a row, some folks prefer things to be spread out. This lets them do that.
