The first interview with the recruiter was pretty standard. A bit of get to know you and problem solving questions (clock one). The second interview was a waste of time due to their format/approach. They showed up late (no apology, fwiw) and then we spent the majority of the interview talking through my history, starting with my University time. This was totally irrelevant imo - nobody goes to University to become an Implementation Consultant. Why did we need to spend 15+ minutes talking about it?? Then they asked about my working history, but mostly about why I applied at certain companies, why I left, what I liked. No questions about what I actually did though. They said they thought going through a candidate's history that way gave them a better picture but for me it was a waste of time to spend so much focus on irrelevant history. I would have loved to tell them about my relevant work experience but never had an opportunity. Red flags all around from this second interview.

It seemed pretty typical with the phone call from the recruiter, but the red flags should have been raised with the take home assignment- which they expect to be about 1.5hrs and took much longer. Maybe it was me, but given two sets of data to organize into one, with each set having conflicting or missing data. It seemed strange since most systems have template CSV files that customers need to put data into. After that, I was selected to meet with the Director and Manager. It felt awkward...the Director asked two questions then sat there, while the manager asked questions from what seemed like a checklist. And the questions made no sense for the role- Whats the angle between the hour and minute hand on a clock at a certain time? Overall, very weird experience.