2018–2026 InterSystems New Grad SDE / CDP: 14 Direct Experiences (Part 2 :)

← Part 1: OA Question Bank

Part 2 contains the 14 directly relevant InterSystems SDE New Grad, CDP, campus-recruited, or explicitly entry-level reports.

Coverage: Six recent 2025–2026 SDE New Grad / CDP reports followed by eight additional 2018–2023 campus or entry-level full-time Software Engineer reports. The complete OA question bank is in Part 1.

Direct reports 01–06: recent SDE New Grad / CDP

01: CDP Engineer — HR and three technical rounds

Report date: June 2026 · Interview date: December 2025 · Role: CDP Engineer · Location: Boston · Result: No offer

1. HR used the first conversation for a resume deep dive and relocation expectations.
2. Three technical rounds followed.
3. The candidate described the technical rounds as mostly logic and behavioral questions.
4. The candidate explicitly said there were no LeetCode questions.
5. One task was: explain a program written in a language you have never seen before.

02: CDP — OA through leadership review

Report date: April 2026 · Process start: November 2025 · Role: Core Development Program · Result: No offer

1. The process began with the online assessments.
2. An HR call followed.
3. The candidate then completed about three hours of onsite interviews.
4. InterSystems requested references.
5. Reference processing took about one month.
6. The candidate was told the application had reached leadership review, waited about another month and a half, and was rejected.

03: University CDP candidate — nearly six months

Report date: April 2026 · Interview date: March 2026 · Role: Core Development Program · Application: University · Result: No offer

1. Three online assessments.
2. HR call.
3. Three interviews.
4. Reference check.
5. Executive-committee review.
6. The full process lasted nearly six months.

04: Cambridge CDP — four teams

Report date: August 2025 · Role: Core Development Program · Location: Cambridge, Massachusetts · Result: No offer

1. Four interviews with four different teams.
2. Each interview lasted about one hour.
3. Interviewers asked the candidate to walk through past projects and experience.
4. The candidate also reported coding questions and computer-systems questions.
5. The source did not preserve the exact coding prompts.

05: Software Engineer New Grad — four technical teams

Report date: March 2026 · Interview date: February 2025 · Role: Software Engineer New Grad · Location: Boston · Result: No offer

1. Recruiter call.
2. HR round.
3. Four technical interviews with four different teams.
4. The candidate understood that all four teams needed to return a positive decision for matching to proceed.
5. One task was reading a snippet in InterSystems’ proprietary language and explaining what it did.

06: CDP — references completed, executive review pending

Report period: 2026 · Role: Core Development Program · Status: Pending when reported

1. The candidate completed the interview loop.
2. References were submitted.
3. After about a month, the candidate was told the reference check was complete.
4. The application was sent to an executive committee for final review.
5. A second candidate in the same discussion separately reported completing interviews and waiting after submitting references.

Direct reports 07–14: additional New Grad, campus, or entry-level SDE

07: Software Engineer New Grad — two online assessments and phone interview

Report date: October 14, 2023 · Interview date: September 2023 · Role: Software Engineer New Grad · Application: Applied online · Process length: Four weeks · Result: No offer

1. The candidate completed two online assessments.
2. A phone interview followed.
3. During the phone interview, the candidate was asked how they had learned about InterSystems.
4. The public report does not preserve a concrete question from either online assessment.

08: Campus Software Engineer — math, logic, behavior, then live interviews

Report date: March 15, 2022 · Interview date: March 2022 · Role: Software Engineer · Location: Cambridge, Massachusetts · Application: College or university · Result: No offer

Online assessments

1. The candidate described three initial assessments covering math, logic, and behavioral questions.
2. The report did not preserve exact question wording, platform, or timing.

Live interviews

1. Technical questions followed, but the candidate said there was no whiteboarding.
2. One preserved prompt was to explain object-oriented programming to a manager.

The process took about two months. The campus application route is the basis for keeping this report in the New Grad evidence set.

09: Explicit entry-level Software Engineer — rule-based OA and five-hour loop

Report date: February 7, 2022 · Interview date: November 2021 · Role: Entry-level Software Engineer · Location: Boston · Application: Online · Result: Accepted offer

Online assessment

1. This was not described as a normal LeetCode test.
2. The assessment introduced logical rules resembling the syntax and typing rules of a programming language.
3. The candidate had to apply those rules to later questions.

Interview loop

1. The next stage was an afternoon of interviews with managers from different teams.
2. The candidate estimated the loop at five hours with very little break time.
3. Because the role was entry-level, candidates entered a group program and spoke with individual teams before placement.
4. Reported topics included networking, leadership examples, past projects, finding possible vulnerabilities in code, and complexity analysis.

This is the clearest older report connecting the rule-learning OA to an explicitly entry-level program.

10: Software Engineer New Grad — logic, hypothetical language, and arithmetic OAs

Report date: March 13, 2020 · Interview date: February 2020 · Role: Software Engineer New Grad · Application: College or university · Result: No offer

Online assessments

1. The candidate described the first three rounds as online assessments.
2. Those assessments tested logic, a hypothetical programming language, and arithmetic.
3. The public page preserves the custom % and * operator fragment reproduced in Part 1. Its final proposition and answer choices are truncated, so they are not reconstructed.

After the assessments

1. A recruiter phone screen followed.
2. The candidate was told to expect two video interviews and then an onsite interview.
3. The candidate said the video-interview invitations never arrived.

11: Campus Software Engineer — three tests and a high-accuracy warning

Report date: February 25, 2020 · Interview date: December 2019 · Role: Software Engineer · Application: College or university · Result: No offer

Online assessments

1. The candidate reported three online assessments: two technical and one personality assessment.
2. One technical assessment required learning a new programming language from the information supplied in the test.
3. The candidate compared the logic pressure to GRE verbal reasoning and believed a very high correct-answer rate was required.
4. Preserved topic labels were data types, operations, and basic data structures.

The report gives no verified passing score, so the “high correct rate” statement remains that candidate’s impression.

12: Campus Software Engineer — coding, personality, and logic

Report date: February 6, 2020 · Interview date: October 2019 · Role: Software Engineer · Location: Boston · Application: College or university · Result: No offer

Process

1. The candidate applied through a university career site.
2. Three exams followed: a coding test, a personality test, and what the candidate called a “logistic” test, likely meaning logic.
3. A phone interview followed the exams.
4. The only preserved phone-screen prompt was “Tell me about yourself.”

This report confirms the three-part structure but does not preserve enough detail to identify individual OA questions.

13: Campus Software Engineer — seven-team onsite after three OAs

Report date: December 23, 2019 · Interview date: November 2019 · Role: Software Engineer · Location: Cambridge, Massachusetts · Application: College or university · Result: Declined offer

Online assessments and screen

1. The first stage contained three online assessments covering problem solving and personality.
2. A short recruiter phone screen followed.

Onsite

1. The candidate met seven people from seven development teams during a full-day onsite.
2. Most conversations focused on behavioral fit, with some technical questions.
3. Preserved technical prompts included reversing a linked list, explaining how to test programs and find edge cases, and designing a database query or structure so the newest entries appear first.
4. The candidate was told that the final hiring decision went to the CEO after the interview team passed along its information.

The coding prompts here belong to the onsite, not the OA.

14: Campus Software Developer — two technical tests and one personality test

Report date: January 10, 2018 · Interview date: December 2017 · Role: Software Developer · Location: New York · Application: College or university · Result: No offer

Online assessments

1. The candidate reported two technical assessments and one personality test.
2. The programming-language test was self-contained and started from first principles.
3. Questions became tricky, but the candidate described the design as interesting and clever.
4. A separate logic/analytic-skills assessment felt more ambiguous.

Phone screen

1. Standard questions covered previous experience, programming languages, interests, and background.

This report predates the current GRID/stack descriptions and should be read as historical format evidence only.

Continue to Part 3

Part 3: Cross-Role Evidence Appendix — link will be added after publication.

Part 3 contains cross-role TET / PI / PET corroboration only. Those reports do not increase the New Grad count.