The process began at the end of March with a 30-minute screening call, followed by a roughly 40-minute interview with the hiring manager in early April. The hiring manager asked why I was interested in the role and covered several broad behavioral questions, though none were particularly in-depth.

The next stage involved a substantial presentation to approximately six people on problems of my choice. This took place at the end of April and lasted about an hour, with an additional two hours of preparation required. I was asked a range of technical questions relating to the statistics and physics behind the problems I had presented.

Following the presentation, there were three 30-minute breakout interviews over the course of a week. Feedback from multiple stakeholders was very positive, and the public job advertisement closed shortly afterward.

I remained in fairly regular contact with the recruiter while waiting for an outcome. After approximately a month, however, communication stopped, and I was left without any clear timeline or meaningful update. It was not until August that I was informed I would not be receiving an offer. The hiring manager did offer to meet and provide feedback on the interview process, which was very positive, and I thanked them for the opportunity.

Overall, this was a highly time-intensive interview process, but it showed very little respect for the time invested by candidates. Keeping someone waiting for several months after the position has closed—and after they have already devoted a full working day to the process—is unprofessional and reflects poorly on the company. Clearer communication and a more timely decision would have made a significant difference.