Interview prep · after the interview
Should you send a follow-up email after an interview?
Someone put this to me on Reddit recently and it was the most upvoted thing in the thread: half the advice online says send one, the other half says it looks desperate. I've been on the receiving end of these for about a decade, so here is the answer from that side of it. Mostly, don't send one. There is one case where you should, and it is not the thank-you note.
If the interview went well, send nothing
A thank-you email after a good interview does not move anything. I have never once read one and thought better of a candidate because of it. The decision is made on how the interview went, and a polite note afterwards is not new information — the panel already has everything it is going to use.
It is not that it hurts you. It is that it does nothing, and doing nothing is a strange thing to spend an evening drafting and a day worrying about. If you walked out feeling it went well, the useful move is to leave it alone and start preparing for the next round.
The one case worth sending: you have something to add
Send a follow-up when the interview didn't go as well as you wanted, and you know why. Not to apologise for it, and not to explain that you were nervous. To actually answer the thing you fluffed.
A candidate once sent me post-interview notes on what he should have answered to a question he had handled badly. It changed my view of his capability. Not because it was polite, but because the notes were good — they showed me the thinking I had failed to get out of him in the room. That is the only follow-up email I can remember changing an outcome.
The reason it works is worth being precise about. An interview is a bad instrument. It samples forty-five minutes of someone under pressure and asks you to infer how they will work for years. When a candidate shows me that the gap was the instrument and not them, I will take that, because I would rather be right than be consistent.
What that email should actually contain
Short. One question, one better answer. Something like: you asked me how I would handle X and I gave you the textbook version — here is what I actually did the last time it came up, and what I would do differently now. Then stop.
What sinks these is padding. If the substance is two sentences and the email is six paragraphs, the four extra paragraphs are the ones that read as desperate. The note that changed my mind was not warm or clever. It was just correct.
Don't let AI write it
This is the piece of interview writing where I would most strongly tell you not to use AI. It is easy to detect, and being caught here costs you the job — you have just told the hiring manager that the thinking they were about to credit you for was not yours.
There is a logic to it beyond the risk of being caught. The entire value of this email is that it is evidence of how you think about a problem. Generate it and there is nothing left to send. Use a tool to work out whether the email is worth sending and what it needs to cover, then write the thing yourself, badly if necessary. Badly and yours beats polished and borrowed.
If they left you a question to think about
Someone in that thread described a hiring manager giving them questions to consider after the interview, with no deadline and no explicit ask. They answered anyway, and worried afterwards that they had overstepped.
They hadn't. When an interviewer leaves you something open-ended, answering it is not a follow-up email — it is the rest of the interview, and sending it shows exactly the proactivity the question was there to test. The one thing to know is that if it was set as a formal take-home with a review attached, the bar goes up rather than down. You were given more time, so more is expected.
Send it within a day
While the interview is still fresh for the people who ran it. A day later they can picture you and remember the question. A week later the panel has moved on, the decision is probably already made, and a late note reads as chasing rather than adding.
The honest summary
Most follow-up emails are written by people who feel the interview slipping away and want to do something. That instinct is right about the feeling and wrong about the action. If it went well, nothing you send improves it. If it went badly, only substance helps, and there is usually exactly one question where you know you left something on the table. Answer that one properly, in your own words, within a day.
This came out of a conversation on r/cscareerquestions where people were arguing both sides of it, which is where most of the disagreement in this piece came from too.
Know which question you left on the table
Calibrd predicts what each round will ask and scores your answers out loud, so the question you would have fluffed gets found before the interview rather than after it.
Free to start · No credit card · Your CV stays on your device