1. Company and Role
Company: Bloomberg
Role: Software Engineer
Batch/Year of Graduation: 2027
Branch: CE
2. Application Process
How did you apply: On-Campus
Timeline:
Application Date: Early August
Online Assessment Date: 12/08/26
Interview Dates: 13th and 14th August
Bloomberg Interview Experience
3. Interview Rounds
Round 0: Online Assessment
Type: Online Assessment — DSA + MCQs
Description:
The process started with an online assessment consisting of 3 DSA problems and a set of MCQs. I was able to solve all 3 DSA questions completely, and the MCQs were relatively straightforward. I managed to answer almost all of them correctly.
The assessment was mainly focused on testing problem-solving ability, basic CS fundamentals, and speed.
Example Questions:
3 DSA coding problems covering standard problem-solving concepts.
Multiple-choice questions based on CS fundamentals and programming concepts.
Difficulty Level: Easy to Medium
Selection: Around 20 candidates progressed to the first interview round.
My Experience:
The OA went quite smoothly for me. Solving all three DSA problems gave me confidence going into the interview rounds. One thing I learned from this stage was that being comfortable with fundamentals makes a huge difference when the time is limited.
Round 1: Technical Interview — DSA + C++ Fundamentals
Type: Technical / DSA
Description:
The first interview was a 30-minute technical round. Interestingly, the interviewer was a senior from PICT's 2025 batch, which immediately made the conversation feel more comfortable.
The interview started with a graph-based DSA problem. I understood the problem, explained my approach, implemented the solution, and coded it in around 10 minutes. The interviewer then spent approximately 5 minutes asking follow-up questions and testing whether I genuinely understood the approach rather than simply arriving at the answer.
The remaining part of the interview focused heavily on in-depth C++ knowledge. The questions went beyond syntax and standard textbook definitions and focused on how things actually work internally.
Example Questions:
Solve a graph-based DSA problem.
What happens internally when you use a
in C++?code1mapHow does hashing work?
Difference between different map/hash-based data structures.
What causes memory leaks?
How is memory managed in C++?
Follow-up questions based on the implementation and complexity of the solution.
Difficulty Level: Medium to Hard
My Experience:
This was one of my better rounds. I was able to solve the coding problem quickly and answered the C++ questions with confidence. The interviewer also kept pushing deeper into the reasoning, but I was comfortable with the fundamentals.
I cleared the first round.
Key takeaway:
Don't prepare DSA only as a collection of problems. Interviewers can easily move from a coding question to asking "Why does this work?" or "What happens internally?" Strong fundamentals are what allow you to handle those follow-ups.
Round 2: Technical Interview — Advanced DSA
Type: Technical / DSA
Description:
The second round was a one-hour DSA interview. It started with a short introduction, followed by a few questions about my resume and projects.
The interviewer then gave me a LeetCode Hard-level problem.
I spent some time understanding the problem and explaining my thought process before moving to implementation. I was able to arrive at the solution, code it, and run it successfully in around 15 minutes.
The next 10 minutes were spent on follow-up questions, edge cases, complexity, and alternative approaches.
One thing that particularly stood out to me was that I did not make any compilation errors or major implementation mistakes while coding. The interviewer specifically noticed this and appreciated the way I approached and implemented the solution.
Example Questions:
LeetCode Hard-level DSA problem.
Explain the approach before coding.
Discuss time and space complexity.
Handle edge cases.
Discuss possible alternative approaches.
Resume/project follow-up questions.
Difficulty Level: Medium-Hard
My Experience:
This round went really well. The interviewer seemed satisfied with both my problem-solving process and implementation.
The biggest thing I learned here was the importance of thinking aloud. Even if you know the solution, explaining why you're choosing an approach gives the interviewer confidence that you actually understand it.
I cleared this round as well.
Round 3: System Design — Designing WhatsApp
Type: System Design / Technical
Description:
The third round was a one-hour system design interview.
The interviewer was a 2016 PICT graduate, so it was interesting to have someone from the same college but with significantly more industry experience evaluating the design.
The problem was:
"Design WhatsApp."
I started by clarifying the requirements and then gradually designed the system, discussing the major components and how they would interact.
The interviewer was not simply looking for a diagram or a list of technologies. A major part of the discussion revolved around why I was making certain decisions.
The discussion included:
Functional and non-functional requirements.
High-level architecture.
User-to-user messaging.
Message delivery.
Real-time communication.
Data storage.
Scalability.
Handling large numbers of concurrent users.
Reliability and failure scenarios.
Trade-offs between different approaches.
A significant portion of the interview became a discussion around choices and trade-offs.
For example:
"Why did you choose this approach?"
"What happens if this component fails?"
"What would you change if the number of users increased?"
"Why this technology instead of another option?"
Difficulty Level: Hard
My Experience:
This round went well. The interviewer appeared satisfied with my design and, more importantly, with the reasoning behind my decisions.
I realized that system design interviews aren't necessarily about finding one "perfect architecture." They are about demonstrating structured thinking, decision-making, and the ability to defend your choices.
Only 4 students, including me, cleared this round.
Round 4: Managerial Interview
Type: Managerial / Behavioral
Description:
The fourth round was conducted at the Bloomberg office and lasted approximately 30 minutes.
Unlike some interviews that feel like a rapid-fire interrogation, this one felt much more like a two-way conversation.
We discussed my background, projects, experiences, decision-making, teamwork, challenges I had faced, and how I approached different situations.
The interviewer was interested not only in what I had done but also in how I thought about situations and made decisions.
Difficulty Level: Medium
My Experience:
I felt comfortable throughout the conversation. It was more of a healthy discussion than an interrogation, and I was able to communicate my experiences naturally.
Round 5: HR Interview
Type: HR / Behavioral / Situational
Description:
The final round was the HR interview.
Most of the questions were situational and behavioral rather than technical. The interviewer wanted to understand my personality, motivations, reactions to different situations, and whether I would be a good fit for the organization.Difficulty Level: Medium
My Experience:
The interview went reasonably well, and I was able to answer the questions. However, looking back, I feel that this was the round where I could have done better.
I don't think my answers were bad. But when you reach the final stage with strong candidates, "good" is sometimes not enough.
There were 4 candidates in the final stage, and ultimately 3 were selected. I was the one who didn't make it.
Final Result
Candidates at each stage:
Online Assessment → 20 → 12 → 8 → 4 → 3 selected
I made it through the technical DSA rounds, solved a Hard-level problem, cleared a system design round where only four candidates remained, and reached the final HR round.
But I wasn't selected.
And honestly, that one candidate difference taught me more than I expected.
What I Learned
The biggest lesson I took from this experience is that an interview is not always a measurement of how good you are.
Sometimes you can solve every coding problem, answer technical questions confidently, design a system well, and still not get the final offer.
That doesn't mean the preparation was wasted.
If anything, reaching the final stage showed me that the preparation was working.
The part I need to improve is not just "knowing more." It's learning how to communicate my experiences better, make my personality more memorable, and show the interviewer who I am beyond my resume and problem-solving ability.
I also learned that getting rejected after coming this close hurts more than getting rejected early.
When you are one of four people left and three are selected, it's very easy to ask yourself:
"What did the other three have that I didn't?"
But eventually, I realized that this is probably the wrong question.
The better question is:
"What can I take from this that makes me better for the next opportunity?"
I didn't get the Bloomberg offer.
But I walked away knowing that I could sit across from experienced engineers, solve difficult problems under pressure, discuss system architecture, defend my decisions, and make it to the final round of one of the most competitive processes I had experienced.
That's something I won't take away from myself just because the final result wasn't what I wanted.
Sometimes you don't lose the opportunity—you gain the experience you needed for the next one.
And maybe that's the most important part of this entire interview.
All the best to my juniors! Hope this experience helps you in your journey. :)
And hi to my friends reading this — thanks for making it till the end. 😂
