It really surprises me when I see big corporations like Facebook, Microsoft, Indeed...etc. hire people who have average levels of intelligence when it comes to lower management. I think that the higher management at those corporations do this for two reasons: 1. It's easier to control people who are less intelligent. 2. It's cheaper to hire less intelligent people which means more profit and a higher stock price. But how do those companies succeed if some of their employees are average? Well, the higher management usually has all the intelligence needed to run the company and lead it to success. Lower and middle management don't really need that much intelligence because most of what they do is routine work which is almost the same everyday. People who interviewed me at indeed for instance didn't have a lot of knowledge and they sounded very unaware of the business process, they asked a few traditional questions and the interviewer was looking at his laptop every few minutes to see if my answers match the answers on his laptop. My advice to you if you think your intelligence level is above average is to stop looking for prestigious companies and start looking for smaller firms because you'll get more appreciation, attention and a bigger salary (unless you're able to get a higher management position at a prestigious company, which is unlikely for someone who's below 50 years of age).

I applied online, had a preliminary interview with the recruiter and took the written test. I had a second interview with the recruiter, handed in copies of my degrees and transcripts for evaluations. When they sent me the test I found out that the test did not look anything like the recruiter had described it, after days of trying to contact the recruiter, I finally had to contact Indeed's help desk. The recruiter said he was usually better at checking his email and he told me the test had been changed. It is not clear if he was unaware of this or just neglected to update the email he was sending out to candidates. After a couple of weeks he called me telling the test had gone very well and they wanted to move forward with me. He said he will call me for another interview over the phone. Every time he called, he completely disregarded (or maybe was unaware of the existence of time zones???) the time and was calling at or before 7am :-( Anyway, during the second screening call he started implying that maybe I was overqualified for this job and that I would not be able to offer my input on the market I was supposed to analyze and that the pay was lower than what I make now (however Austin is way cheaper!). Anyway, after a good result in the test one would expect a more positive attitude but he was actively discouraging me. Then he said they would have to verify my degrees with all the transcripts because they were looking for some specific business course that was a requirement. However there was no such requirement in the job posting. Later he said that the legal department would have to verify the transcripts. After a few weeks he called saying that he had forgotten to send my degrees to the department and that he would do it the following week. Finally he called me saying that the department could not find those courses in my transcripts and therefore my degrees were not "adequate". Note that the job posting required a BA while I actually have 2 Masters....... This entire ordeal took about 2 months, the recruiter was clearly incapable of handling the situation or his job for that matter. To me this does not make any sense. Why would you first encourage and then actively discourage a candidate who is very well qualified and did a great job with the test YOU have designed for the position????? Besides, at every conversation the recruiter would say "I would like to remind you that this position is in Austin and you would have to move"....I can understand making sure the first time, but after that it really just sounded as he was actively discouraging me asking "Are you sure you want to move to Austin? We would only pay for a one way ticket for you". So, I don't know if something was wrong just with the recruiter or with the company as a whole. The lack of professionalism was astounding from a company that wants to help other companies with recruitment.