The staffing agency representing me told me I had a 4:00 PM interview, but get there at 3:30 to clear security. The interview was at the bank's secure data center building. They also told me the interview would be in a group setting, and that there would be "a basic examination both functional and technical." The security reception area was the only room in the building you could enter without an employee card key. It was maybe 15 by 25 feet, with four seats. By 3:40 there were around 30 people milling around in the confined space. Two bank people showed up, said that we would be divided into two groups, and then walked around asking people their names, finding the name on a list, then writing "Group 1" or "Group 2" on slips of paper, and giving it to the person. This took much longer than just calling out peoples' names, and telling them "1"or "2". I probably would not have cared a much, except that the temperature was in the high 90's, and I had been in the crowded, stifling room for over a half-hour wearing my interview suit. My group was led into the building to a conference room that was already occupied. After milling around for a while, we were led to another conference room where a person, whom I will call the moderator, told us not to be disconcerted; he had been hired only two months before, and his interview had been confusing as well. He then announced that we would now take a written test, and afterwards talk about ourselves and why we wanted to work at the bank. After a consultation with another bank employee, they moved us to the original room which had a table we could use to take the test. They distributed a 12 (or so) sheet double sided test, and left us for nearly an hour. The test had questions about banking in general, loans, credit cards, mainframe computer technicalities, database programming, javascript programming, and questions you might ask a business analyst or systems analyst. There were no questions relevant to my fieId, Unix operations. One other thing about the test: it had obviously been written by a non-native English speaker, and not proofread or corrected. There were syntax and idiomatic errors that made several questions unclear. I give one example below. Now after 5 PM, we went back to the other conference room, where the moderator called out names at random, and people were to stand up and give a brief (1-1/2 to 2 minute) summary of who we are, what we do, and why the bank should hire us while he and his colleague took notes. The people in the room worked in a wide range of fields - bank operations, customer-facing service, systems analysis, mainframe programming, operations analysis. Partway trough this process, the moderator's colleague left the room without a word. After the person speaking finished, the moderator halted the personal pitches, saying that he wanted to wait for the other person to get back to continue. In the mean time, he said people should ask questions. He also added that if you felt that your "who I am" speech didn't highlight your good qualities, this was an excellent opportunity to make yourself stand out and get noticed. Among the questions, someone asked "what kinds of positions does the bank have open, and how many openings in each area are you looking to fill?" The moderator didn't know. The other bank person had not returned, and the questions petered out. Eventually the moderator resumed calling on people to give their "who I am" pitches. When everyone had had their turn, he again called for questions, repeating that it was a way to get noticed. During this round of questions the second bank person returned. Finally the moderator said he would call on people by name once again for a last chance to stand out. After each of us was done, we could leave. I was one of the first people called. I spoke my piece, and left the room - now free to wander around in the secure facility alone and unsupervised at 6:15 PM with most people gone. (Actually I just headed for the exit.) I never heard back from Santander, nothing positive, nothing negative. I think that if I had gotten back something positive, I would have asked for another interview - a real one - so I could get a better impression of what the workplace would be like. In reality, hearing nothing back was a negative - they are not interested in me. I am not too upset, though, because I suspect that in its own way, this interview process - with its impersonal treatment of us interviewees, disconnect between what the goals of an interview should be and the actual elements of the interview process, and the haphazard execution of the interview process itself - did, in fact, give me an impression of what the workplace would be like.