Marshall Wace Interview Questions
& Process

So I went through this 4 stage interview process for a Cyber Security Analyst role, which honestly felt like a colossal waste of time. The first stage was a 1-hour general chat about the role and my background. Then, another 1-hour session for more technical SOC-related discussions. After that, there was a 1-hour "pair" programming task. The final stage was a 3-hour on-site interview that was broken down into three parts: first, a chat with two security team members, then an interview with the CISO, and finally an exit interview with HR/Hiring. The whole thing took about a month. Apparently, I was the first person to go through this entire process as they were hiring two people for this position. Despite getting good feedback throughout, I was rejected with feedback that I "Struggled with "Pair programming task" and was underwhelming in CompSci fundamentals." It's weird because the programming task was in the 3rd stage, and they still invited me to the 4th. The task itself was problematic - they made us share screens to prevent cheating and banned LLMs, but allowed Googling. The VM they provided was laggy and had issues with shortcuts like F2, and the IDE cursor was hard to see, plus copy-pasting was disabled, all of which ate into the allotted time. The task instructions were also poorly written. Even though they said I struggled with the 3rd stage, they invited me for the 4th stage the same day, requiring me to travel to London on short notice for a 3-hour interview. During the 4th stage, the CISO gave me really positive feedback, even suggesting connecting on LinkedIn to help my career, which felt like a red flag in hindsight since she ignored my request. I was told I'd hear back by Monday or Tuesday, but got rejected on Tuesday via my recruiter, which was unprofessional. They took 3 working days to reject me after the final interview, making me question why they didn't reject me sooner if my performance in the 3rd stage was the main issue. I had to chase for feedback, which was vague. Feels like they were looking for a unicorn or had someone else in mind already. Don't bother with this one.

So after this whole ordeal of three online tests and a data lab thing, I finally got to the AC round. But honestly, it felt like they'd already decided who they wanted before we even started talking. They just kind of brushed aside whatever I explained and kept asking about my results without even trying to get it. And some of the people interviewing me, they didn't seem to know the basic machine learning stuff, which is wild since they're supposed to be judging candidates for a quant research job. It was super disappointing how little technical depth there was, especially compared to what you'd expect.

You start with an application and CV screen where they check your grades, tech experience, and projects. Then, there's an online coding test, usually on Codility, that looks at problem-solving, data structures, efficiency, and clean code. The next step is a first-round interview, which is HR/behavioral, and it's a video call about your motivation, communication, teamwork, and if you're a culture fit. They might ask things like 'Why Marshall Wace?', 'Why fintech / hedge funds?', and about an engineering challenge you faced. After that, there's a technical interview or lab-style assessment where you do a hands-on coding or debugging task in a controlled setting, potentially with Python, Java, or similar languages, and questions about systems and data handling, possibly reviewing or adding to existing code. Then, you'll have a project presentation interview where you showcase a coding project you're proud of, explaining your thought process, design choices, architecture, and trade-offs, aiming for clarity, structure, and insight into teamwork. The final round is on-site in Hong Kong with senior engineers, including a culture fit chat. There might be some logic/technical questions, but the main focus is on collaboration, ownership, and your ability to make an impact quickly. If you're a top performer, you might get a return offer for the graduate program.

The first stage of the interview was with HR. The interviewer was friendly, but focused heavily on every small detail of my CV, spending too much time on my earliest job from 15 years ago. I wasn't able to discuss my more recent and relevant experiences. I also found some of her personal questions inappropriate, like asking about my birthplace and my parents' occupations. I felt discriminated against. The feedback provided to the recruiter was strange and unlike any feedback I've received before. Despite having conducted many interviews, this was the most unfair one. I'm relieved it's over, as I don't think I would have been happy at this company.