Emerson

It was a two around interview first was a online assessment with coding questions and second was in campus interview they are they asked basic DSA questions of python. They asked the questions in C programming most of the DSA questions were in C language and they were pretty basic

3 interviews 2 virtual 1 F2F you have to describe some good technical questions and answer related to what ever technology you are applying they are asking questions basically more on pratical knowledge

Emerson Campus Assessment It basically contains 5 sections and the duration of the test was 2Hr and the total of 85 marks test. Let's see the section-wise breakdown: Aptitude:10 MCQ (20 minutes) Analytical:10 MCQ (20 minutes) Technical:20MCQ (30 minutes) C++ or Java: 20 MCQ (20 minutes) Coding Question:1 (30 minutes) The coding question is basically medium-level ( Optimization required). for section 4 you have the option to choose C++ or Java to get the answer in those specific languages and there is no restriction for section 5.

The technical round focused heavily on system design and scalability scenarios. While that’s understandable, the discussion felt more like a cross-examination than a two-way technical conversation. I attempted to explain my approach around grid data handling, pagination, indexing, and scalability, but the interviewer appeared dismissive and did not engage constructively with my answers. There was very little effort to guide or clarify expectations. The technical round was focused heavily on system design and performance scenarios. Some of the questions were quite broad, and it wasn’t always clear what level of detail the interviewer was expecting. For example, when asked how to show live progress in a Web API, I explained using SignalR for real-time updates, which is a common approach. However, it seemed the interviewer was expecting a different answer related to streaming or yield, though that wasn’t clearly specified in the question. The discussion felt more like a search for a specific keyword rather than understanding the candidate’s thought process. Overall, the interaction didn’t feel very collaborative. A more open discussion or clarification during the questions would have made the experience better.

The interview was scheduled two weeks in advance, and the job description and my resume were shared beforehand. However, when I joined the interview, the interviewer asked for my introduction and then mentioned that they were not looking for this profile. The interview was concluded shortly after. It would have been helpful if the profile alignment had been clarified earlier to avoid inconvenience for both sides.