Senior Software Engineer | Rippling | Reject
- Result
- Rejected
- Experience
- 7 years
- Posted
- 16 Sept 2025
Summary
I interviewed for a Senior Software Engineer position at Rippling and was ultimately rejected. While I performed strongly in some coding and managerial rounds, my performance in the System Design rounds, particularly the booking system design, led to the rejection.
How it went
I interviewed at Rippling for a Senior Software Engineer role with 7+ years of experience, primarily gained in startups. The process comprised five rounds.
Round 1: Delivery Cost Tracking System
This round focused on designing and implementing a delivery cost tracking system. It felt like a standard Rippling question, and I believe I performed well, even tackling the additional complexities. The verdict was 'Strong Hire'.
Round 2: Manager Round
For the manager round, I prepared a detailed PowerPoint presentation showcasing my most challenging project. The manager didn't delve much into technical specifics, mainly asking about SLAs and task division. I received another 'Strong Hire' verdict.
Onsites
Round 3: Rule Evaluator
The first onsite round involved designing and coding a rule evaluator. This was another common Rippling problem. I chose C++ and ended up writing a substantial amount of OOP code. In hindsight, I should have tested my code more frequently midway through the process. While I completed the implementation, there were some errors I needed to debug. This round resulted in a 'Lean Hire'.
Round 4: Design Booking System
This was a System Design round where I was asked to design a booking system. I frankly admit I was unprepared for High-Level Design rounds, having focused on Google interviews just two days prior. The interviewers expected a very thorough, complete answer and didn't engage in the collaborative discussion style I'd experienced at Google. I felt I absolutely bombed this round, receiving a 'No Hire'.
Round 5: Design Stack Overflow APIs
The final round involved designing Stack Overflow APIs. I didn't feel extensive preparation was needed here, as it primarily involved standard follow-up questions on scalability and security. I performed well, getting a 'Hire to Strong Hire' verdict.
Given my poor performance in the System Design round, I decided not to follow up with my recruiter for feedback and received a rejection email two days later. The recruiters were genuinely nice, probably the best I've encountered.
Questions asked (4)
- 01
Design a Delivery Cost Tracking System
Data Structures & Algorithms
Design and implement a system to efficiently track delivery costs, potentially including features like real-time updates, cost aggregation, and handling various delivery parameters. The problem involved solving additional parts as discussed during the interview.
- 02
Implement a Rule Evaluator
Data Structures & Algorithms
Design and implement a flexible rule evaluation engine. This involved substantial object-oriented programming in C++, requiring careful design and implementation to handle various rule types and conditions.
- 03
Design a Booking System
System Design · Hard
Design a comprehensive, scalable booking system. This system design problem required a full-length answer detailing high-level architecture, API design, database considerations, and scalability strategies, without much interviewer guidance or collaborative discussion.
- 04
Design Stack Overflow APIs
System Design
Design the core APIs for a platform similar to Stack Overflow. The discussion included standard follow-up questions concerning scalability, security, and how to handle various functionalities like question posting, answering, voting, and search.
How they prepared
My preparation included crafting a detailed PowerPoint presentation for the managerial round, focusing on my most challenging project. However, I confess my preparation for High-Level Design rounds was insufficient, especially due to my focus on prior Google interviews. My main advice to others would be to thoroughly study Rippling's standard questions and be prepared to deliver clean, functional code, as they expect finished solutions rather than collaborative problem-solving.