A former colleague referred me to the recruiters; they reached out quickly. The interview process was as follows:
1. First recruiter emailed and set a phone screen interview.
2. Second recruiter emailed and set a phone interview with the hiring manager.
3. Phone interview with the hiring manager. By this point it was clear the pay scale was below my expectation and experience, and my experience was above the initial posting.
4. Third recruiter emailed requesting I complete a series of quizzes effectively proving out my capabilities and experience. There was also a request for a personality quiz.
This is where things got bizarre. They requested my college GPA and transcript. I almost didn't complete the request, because I don't believe in a culture that values the performance of a 20-year-old over that of a thirty-something with more than a decade of proven excellence in work history and experience. They stated I wouldn't be able to move forward without it.
5. Had a 2+ hour onsite interview with numerous groups of individuals from the broader team, as well as the CEO. I enjoyed meeting with the team. They were clearly bright and driven. I especially liked the hiring manager. Meeting the head of the company was great. He spent more time than originally planned for, and thoughtfully considered my questions. When I pushed him on the practice of reviewing an academic record — which is not standard practice in most tech positions (we aren't doctors proving out schooling credentials) — he stated it stemmed from needing to ensure hiring the very best people. I respect their choice to include what they believe is a key indicator of success, but I believe it's a faulty one. I don't know if it played a part in my not receiving an offer, but in the interview I felt compelled to provide personal details "explaining" certain gaps or inconsistencies. I'd have much preferred to spend that time talking about my relevant work experience as opposed to sharing such personal information in a professional setting with people I'd never met.
6. A week after the interview I received an email from a recruiter stating they would move forward with other candidates. The reasoning provided, and the fact that the position remains open on their site more than one month later, leads me to believe the pay scale they're requesting and the must-haves for the position are unrealistic. It would appear that Lucid hopes to hire more experience than they can reasonably pay, but maybe that was just their way of trying to kindly let me down.
I cite this interview as negative, not because of the general process or the individuals, but because I find the practice of evaluating a candidate's credentials academically to be antiquated and off-putting, particularly in an era when the leading tech companies in the world now state they no longer consider a college degree mandatory. One reviewer said they appreciated the company valued academic performance, but I'm guessing that reviewer is just a few years removed from college. What classes I took, how I did in them, and what my final GPA was could be indicators into the type of employee I would be...if I were only 25 years old with only a few years of work experience under my belt. I'd think my relevant certifications and experience from a decade+ career would be far more valuable, and yet the recruiter made it clear that the executive team would be evaluating my college experience in conjunction with the rest of my interviews and credentials. It's possible Lucid could be a great company to work for, but after chatting with a recruiter friend about the practice, I'm guessing they're missing out on a lot of great talent by prioritizing this particular measurement.
