First stage: Video call with a member of HR team - this is more intense than typical screenings with interrogative personality tests. Second stage: Practical test/technical challenge - this was easy (or so I thought*), write a Python script to report on metadata and variants from a VCF. The expectations for a complete and scalable solution were unrealistic given as a practical test, good employees do not usually have time to provide a production ready complete solution. * apparently one of the variant related report suggestions were quite specific in reference to a particular cancer genomics paper that was not indicated. Third stage: Interview with panel of 2 Bioinformaticians and 1 wet-lab research scientist, and review of practical test/technical challenge. The interview itself should not have been difficult. The job description specified some key essential criterion and some desireable. The difficulty arose because I applied on the basis that I met all the essential criteria and more, but I lack experience in the desirable but not essential criteria. This is reflected on my CV, and I was honest that I had neither experience working with cancer data nor working experience with variant calling, simply that I had covered such topics during the gaining of qualifications and training. Unfortunately, I was unable to steer the interview in a more positive direction of everything I can do, the main focus was on what I couldn't do. This became very uncomfortable as they pushed hard for me to answer questions based on something I had already told them I was inexperienced in. It felt like an interrogation. I would have loved the opportunity to explain more about myself, more about what I can do for the company and the team rather than what I couldn't do. It was an unnecessarily uncomfortable experience.