Facebook

Role: Software Engineer (E5 target)

College: Not Specified

Interview Date: March - June 2025

Interview Type: Full-Time

Result: Mixed signals, follow-up coding round requested.

Difficulty: Hard (especially Embedded C questions)

Rounds: Multiple (Recruiter call, Phone Screen 1, Phone Screen 2, Onsite rounds: Embedded System Design, Coding 1, Behavioral, Coding 2, Embedded System Design, Follow-up Coding)

Topics Asked: Embedded C (bit manipulation, flash page aligned writing), Data Structures, Algorithms (LeetCode medium), Behavioral, Embedded System Design (MCU and timing related)

Experience:

A software engineer with 10 years of experience applied to Meta in March and, after reaching out to a recruiter on LinkedIn, scheduled a phone screen for an embedded software engineer E5 target role.

Phone Screen 1 (March): The recruiter mentioned it could be embedded C or general DSA. The candidate focused on LeetCode and C++. The interviewer asked two embedded C questions: one on bit manipulation and one on flash page-aligned writing. The candidate struggled, finished the first but not the second, and was informed a few days later that they did not pass.

Phone Screen 2 (April): Randomly, the recruiter called back, stating internal changes for embedded software engineer hiring meant more focus on C or C++ solvable questions. Despite the previous embedded C questions, the candidate was approved for another phone screen. This time, the interviewer asked two generic LeetCode-style coding questions, which was unexpected.

Onsite Rounds (Scheduled later):

• Embedded System Design: The candidate felt they did "pretty well" with MCU and timing-related questions, though in retrospect, they would have changed a few things. Feedback was "pretty good."
• Coding 1: Two Meta-tagged LeetCode mediums. The candidate solved both optimally, even one they hadn't seen before. Feedback was "all good."
• Behavioral: Went well, with the candidate having ample experience and stories. Feedback was good.
• Coding 2: Involved bit manipulation and a linked list-style question. The candidate struggled, found a buggy solution, and missed a few bugs in verification. Feedback was "not positive."

Due to mixed signals in coding, the candidate was asked for a follow-up coding interview in June. This round again focused on embedded C bit manipulation. The candidate struggled initially but then cleaned up the solution.