IT IS A VERY VERY UNFAIR AND TERRIBLE INTERVIEW! I recently participated in the final stages of the interview process for a position at Barclays. It should be 2 rounds and for 2 hours. While the initial round of the interview met professional standards, the subsequent round significantly deviated from my expectations of fairness and thoroughness. Late Start and Unstructured Introduction: The interview was scheduled for 11:00 AM but the interviewer came late. The interviewer, without any formal introduction, proceeded directly to the questions, leaving ambiguity about their role and association with Barclays. Lack of Visual Engagement: Notably, at the start of the interview, the interviewer turned off their camera, compelling me to respond to questions while facing a blank screen. This continued for the initial minutes, creating a disconnected and uncomfortable experience. It was only after some time that the interviewer reactivated the camera, but this initial lack of visual engagement set a disconcerting tone for the remainder of the interview. Significantly Reduced Interview Duration: The interview was expected to last 50 minutes, a standard duration consistent with other candidates' experiences. However, my interview was abruptly cut short, lasting only slightly over 20 minutes. This significant reduction in allocated time contrasted starkly with the standard practice and did not allow for a comprehensive evaluation of my skills and experiences. Rapid and Unengaged Questioning: The interviewer rapidly went through a set of standardized behavioral questions with minimal engagement. My responses were met with silence, and there were no follow-up questions for clarification. I can only see she was typing. This lack of interaction failed to create a conducive environment for a comprehensive assessment. Unprofessional Conduct of the Interviewer: The interviewer in the second round demonstrated a marked lack of professionalism. She rapidly read out the questions in a monotone, visibly glancing left and right, evidently reading from a script. This mechanical recitation was further accentuated as she repeated questions without my prompting and did not offer any context or explanations. Her approach rendered the interaction impersonal and significantly detracted from the effectiveness and quality of the interview process. Absence of Technical Questions: Contrary to the preliminary communication which indicated that the interview would comprise both behavioral and technical questions, the second round entirely lacked any technical queries. This was in stark contrast to the first round, which had maintained a balanced mix of both types of questions. The omission of technical questions in the second round not only deviated from the initial briefing but also limited my ability to fully demonstrate my technical competencies, which are crucial for the role I was interviewing for. Incomplete Interview Process: Although I was informed that there would be eight questions, the interview concluded abruptly without covering all the planned questions. This abrupt end, coupled with the absence of technical questions, felt rushed and incomplete. Feedback on Rejection: The feedback received highlighted a lack of detail in describing my projects. However, there was no opportunity during the interview to elaborate on these, as the questions did not probe into the specifics of my experiences. The overall experience left me feeling that the interview was more a formality than a genuine evaluation of my suitability for the role. The hurried nature of the interview, lack of engagement, and deviation from standard interview protocols contributed to a sense of unfairness and dissatisfaction with the process. I had anticipated a more thorough and equitable assessment, reflective of Barclays' reputation. This experience, however, did not meet those expectations, and I believe it is important for potential candidates to be aware of this as they consider opportunities at Barclays.