Amen. I'm a data scientist in healthcare with approaching 10 years of experience (since, you know, people were doing "data science" since before "data science"

Amen. I'm a data scientist in healthcare with approaching 10 years of experience (since, you know, people were doing "data science" since before "data science" was a thing, they just called it epidemiology, biostatistics, or biomedical informatics). I had two recent interview experiences that left a really crappy taste in my mouth. One was at Grail. Recruiter contacted me. I have a biology background from undergrad, but little direct experience in that field since then. Recruiter says that's totally fine, they were happy with even a little bit of bio experience and would happily get people up to speed after that. In my five panel interviews, they literally all asked the same technical question. Literally all of them. Asked the same question. The exact same question. It was a question related to a project that they had all worked on previously, and required some biology knowledge specific to this problem. I did not get that question right. However, by the fifth time I was asked that question, I had surmised enough tidbits from the previous four times that I could piece together a decent answer. No response from the recruiter (which was fine by me, as I assumed there was our opinions of each other were mutual). Well, until three months later, when I get an email saying they had long considered my application and would not be moving forward. Uh huh. Second experience was at one of the big companies. Recruiter contacts me about a very specific role that seems perfectly aligned with my background. It's a new team, there isn't a job description for it. I've previously chatted with this recruiter and some of the folks on the team, but timing never worked out (or, alternative theory, an ex had been working on the same team and would not be ok working together). They bring me in, and the technical screen is done by someone from a totally different part of the organization. This person apparently does a lot of signal processing. I have never done signal processing in my life, and it's not something that's on my resume. I'm very open with that, and yet all of the technical questions he asks me are ones involving signal processing techniques. Recruiter tells me that I "didn't have enough data science experience" for that job. I almost snapped back (but didn't; not worth burning bridges) that I was surprised they would even know that, since they never asked any questions that tap into my data science skills. Someone screwed something up in that process, and it wasn't me — if signal processing is required for that job, then I should never have been a candidate; if signal processing is not required, then I should never have been quizzed on it. There are plenty of studies that show unfavorable answers to irrelevant questions tend to negatively bias perception of candidates. Being set up for failure really blows. If I could redo everything again, I would ask recruiters more questions about the interview process and how that process lines up with job requirements; I would not be shy with the interviewer or recruiter if I felt like I was being judged on something that wasn't in line with my expectations ("I noticed that you're asking a lot of signal processing questions and not questions around things I have experience with — is that a core aspect of the job? I'm not sure I would be a good fit if that's the case, otherwise I'd love an opportunity to demonstrate my skills that might be more relevant"); and I would not be shy about cutting an interview early, as it saves everyone's time.