Not at all complaining about NOT getting hired. But I am trying to figure out how they come to a conclusion based on the interview experience. Here are the details from my experience: 1:1 on phone was fine. 6 weeks later get an email saying I have an on-site interview. Scheduled that. Nervous as heck, right, bc this is Google? But the interview process was incomprehensible. They asked me (through 4 interviews) to design like 6 studies all the mean time typing away with their head buried in their computer typing madly. (They should know that is completely inhibiting of a fluid conversation.) I was asking myself if this is how they conduct research, which is against fundamental practices. That is it. Nothing on data analysis, presentation, data collection, or any other skills that also make up the job. That baffles me because they were sending the message that I can only handle one sole responsibility: designing studies. I hope after this much I invested in my career (edu + experience) I would be considered to have more traits. I work at a substantial company equivalent to Google and have received the utmost top reviews repeatedly and they had no way to figure this out? Also, this was a big red flag - I never met with a hiring manager. I got 5 minutes at the end of each session to ask questions (with one interviewer literally saying "I guess I promised you some time to ask me questions"). On some level, I felt they failed me and I dont know if I would feel comfortable working there when they sent a message that they are above me (by not speaking to a manager, not making eye contact, not explaining the job) and that I possess only one trait. Please interpret this solely as an account of my experience and nothing more. I feel that a company like Google would have a more sophisticated hiring process that gets at the person, which this failed to do. It actually made me fall in love again with my current position - so I got something out of it!!