Jpmorgan Chase

I applied for the JPMC Software Engineering Program through the campus hiring process. What stood out to me immediately was that this was not a normal process where everything depended on clearing a series of technical interviews. The selection was closely connected with the Code for Good process, so I had to prepare for both coding and communication. The first actual test was the HackerRank coding assessment. I got two DSA problems, and the difficulty was around easy to medium. The questions were mainly based on fundamental problem-solving rather than advanced competitive programming. I focused on arrays, strings, basic data structures, and carefully checking the constraints before writing the solution. I managed to complete both questions within the allotted time, which was important because the OA was the first major filtering stage. Similar JPMC reports describe two-question HackerRank assessments covering arrays and strings, with some candidates receiving DP or graph-based questions as well. After clearing the OA, I received the HireVue assessment. This was completely different from the coding round because there was no live interviewer. Questions appeared on the screen, I got limited preparation time, and then had to record my response. The questions were behavioral rather than DSA-focused. I was asked about situations involving teamwork, communication, mistakes, and going beyond what was expected in a project. Reports from the same process describe two recorded behavioral questions with limited preparation and retake opportunities. I then received the shortlist for Code for Good. This was the most interesting part of the entire process. I was placed into a team with candidates I had not worked with before, and we were given an NGO problem statement. Instead of immediately starting to code, we first discussed the requirements, divided responsibilities, and decided on the technology stack. I worked mainly on the development side, but I also participated in discussions about the overall solution. Mentors were available throughout the hackathon, so whenever we were stuck, we could discuss our approach with them. I realized that simply writing the most code was not enough. Communication, helping teammates, discussing technical decisions, and being able to explain our solution were all important. During the final presentation, we demonstrated the working features and explained the architecture and our individual contributions. I also had discussions with the mentors about why we had selected certain technologies and what problems we faced while implementing the solution. Similar candidate reports specifically mention mentor interactions, technical contribution, technology choices, teamwork, and handling challenges as important parts of the Code for Good evaluation. After the hackathon, I received the confirmation that I had been selected for the SEP internship. For me, the biggest difference from a regular SDE hiring process was that JPMC evaluated how I worked with a new team under time pressure, not just how quickly I could solve DSA problems.