The entire process felt unnecessarily long and inconsiderate of a candidate’s time. They required three separate assessments a psychometric test, a logic exam, and an English comprehension exam before even moving into interviews. After that, I completed four out of five interviews. I didn’t move forward with the fifth because the fourth interviewer, who wasn’t even officially part of the company yet, apparently had decisive influence over the outcome. It feels unfair to go through such an extensive process only to receive a rejection without any basic respect for the effort involved. What’s frustrating is that the first and second filters , the actual recruiting managers were great. They felt professional, grounded, and reasonable. But the people higher up in the process are what raised red flags. Their expectations felt unrealistic and, honestly, a bit cruel. It’s hard to justify putting a candidate through this many exams and interviews just to reject them without real consideration for their time or effort. A major example was the strange feedback I received. I was asked what I would do if a candidate ghosted or said they were no longer interested. I answered honestly: I’d follow up two or three times and then move on. Their “correct” answer was to keep insisting or ask the candidate for a referral, which doesn’t make practical sense. If someone isn’t interested, they’re not going to engage further, much less give referrals. Feedback like that made the process feel disconnected from real-world recruiting and left me questioning the judgment behind it.