I Passed the Interview—Then the Test Started Looking Like a Job

Job interviews are supposed to test your skills, not quietly turn into unpaid work. But for some candidates, the line between “assessment” and “free labor” is easier to cross than expected.

The letter from our reader:

“The interview process took nearly a month. Two video calls, one case discussion, and a final conversation with the hiring manager that ended with, “We really like you. You passed the interview.”

A few hours later, HR emailed. There was just one final step: a “practical test” to see how I worked in real conditions. They said it would take about a week but stressed it was standard and part of their process.

I hesitated. A full week sounded like a lot. But the role paid well, and I didn’t want to seem difficult at the last stage. I agreed.

They sent detailed instructions. Daily deadlines. Slack access. Even feedback after each submission.

By the third day, it didn’t feel like a test anymore—it felt like a real project. I was solving actual problems, fixing things they said were “urgent,” and revising based on stakeholder comments.

I kept telling myself it was worth it.

On the final day, I submitted everything and thanked them for the opportunity. HR replied that they’d be in touch “very soon.”

They weren’t.

After a week of silence, I followed up. No response. Another week passed. Then I received a short email saying they’d “decided to move forward with a candidate whose experience aligned more closely with current needs.”

That was it. I didn’t say anything. I assumed there was nothing I could do.

Two months later, I got another email from the same company. They wanted to interview me again.

The role was listed as “new,” the salary was lower, and the job description included experience with a system I had helped design—during that unpaid test week.

That’s when I realized the interview hadn’t failed.

I replied and asked if this was a mistake. HR apologized and said my information “wasn’t properly documented in the system.”

That’s when it hit me. They hadn’t rejected me and moved on.

They’d used my work, forgotten I existed, and started the process all over again."

Thank you to the reader who shared this experience with us. Stories like this help others recognize when an interview crosses a line.

Have you faced something similar? Share your story in the comments.

Long tests aren’t proof of talent.

Let’s be clear from the start: testing candidates isn’t the problem. Wanting to be thorough isn’t the problem either. Companies want people who understand the role, fit the team, and can contribute quickly—that’s reasonable.

But somewhere along the way, tech tests stopped being a way to assess skills and started becoming something else entirely.

A week-long, unpaid assignment isn’t proof of talent. More often, it’s a barrier that filters out good candidates for the wrong reasons.

1. They Take Far More Time Than Anyone Admits.

A “4-hour task” almost never takes four hours. Candidates who care end up spending evenings, weekends, and sometimes close to two full working days trying to get it right—on top of their existing job, family responsibilities, and daily stress.

For many people, that’s not just inconvenient. It’s unrealistic.

When a test stretches over weeks, momentum disappears. And in hiring, momentum matters more than most companies realize.

2. They Kill Excitement at the Worst Moment.

Job hunting isn’t just logical—it’s emotional. When interviews go well, candidates feel connected, motivated, and excited about what’s next.

Then comes the massive test.

Just like revisiting a house weeks after a great viewing, the enthusiasm fades. The spark dulls. What felt promising starts to feel heavy. Many candidates quietly disengage before they even submit.

3. The Results Are Often Misread.

Tech tests are supposed to show how someone thinks. Instead, they often punish people for doing things differently.

Candidates fail because the task was unclear. Or they pass—only to hear, “That’s not how we do it here.” In fast-moving industries, there is rarely one “right” way. Grading these tests can become subjective, inconsistent, and unfair.

Great matches are lost not because of lack of skill, but because of mismatched expectations.

4. They Break the Human Connection.

A strong interview builds trust. Values align. Everyone leaves feeling optimistic.

Then the message arrives: “Complete this long technical task. If it goes well, we’ll continue. If not, that’s the end.”

All that connection evaporates. The candidate stops feeling like a person and starts feeling like unpaid labor.

5. Most Candidates Don’t Actually Like Them.

Some people enjoy showing off their skills. Many don’t.

Most candidates don’t know exactly what you’re hoping to see, worry about going in the wrong direction, and feel like they’re juggling two jobs—the one they already have and the one they’re auditioning for without pay.

And all of this happens before they even know if they want the job.

6. The Way They’re Judged Is Often Backward.

Humans tend to look for flaws before strengths. In tests, that means small differences become deal-breakers.

It’s a waste, and it hurts both sides.

7. They Slow Everything Down.

Teams often hire because they’re overwhelmed. But those same teams then struggle to find time to review long tests properly.

Weeks pass. Feedback is delayed. Meanwhile, strong candidates accept other offers and move on—usually to companies that made decisions faster.

The longer and heavier the test, the more great candidates quietly walk away.

HR Fired Me After I Asked for More Pay—A Decade of Loyalty Meant Nothing