Getting a job is not an easy task in the modern times and it won’t be wrong to say that the hiring processes are also getting stricter as the companies don’t want to invest in wrong candidates. However, recently something happened which sparked a debate over the strict evaluation criteria in today’s job market. A recent discussion was ignited when a redditor shared his experience of being rejected for a Data Engineer role due to a minor mistake — a missing comma in a SQL query.
The applicant detailed how he had successfully cleared the initial interview round at a well-known company, which he hinted had a name resembling “quantity”. During the second round, he was required to write a SQL query using Notepad. Despite correctly formulating the query, he overlooked a comma between two column names. This seemingly small oversight resulted in his rejection, leaving him frustrated with the hiring process.
He described how the interviewer spent a significant amount of time discussing the risks of over-reliance on AI tools and IDEs, disregarding his experience in working with complex analytical queries and building ETL pipelines for a leading company. Reflecting on the situation, he emphasised that the mistake was an oversight rather than a reflection of his skills. Seeking advice from the community, he asked for guidance on successfully transitioning from a Data Analyst to a Data Engineer role.
Here is the post:
Got Rejected Over a Missing Comma – This Market Is a Joke
byu/IntrovertCheesecake indevelopersIndia
The post quickly gained traction, sparking an intense discussion on hiring practices. Many users sympathised with the job seeker, arguing that minor mistakes should not overshadow relevant experience.
One commenter pointed out how unreasonable it was to reject a qualified candidate over a small formatting error, while another questioned the expectation of flawless manual coding without the aid of an IDE. Some expressed frustration, noting that interviews seem more focused on eliminating candidates rather than assessing their actual abilities.
On the other hand, some defended the hiring decision, arguing that attention to detail is crucial in data engineering. A missing comma, they pointed out, could disrupt an entire script, making it a valid consideration during the hiring process. Others suggested that the rejection was not just about the comma but about maintaining high standards in roles where precision is critical.
As discussions around hiring criteria continue, this incident has fueled further debate on whether employers should prioritise real-world problem-solving abilities over minor technical slip-ups in their hiring decisions. What is your take on this matter? Let us know.
