I applied for the role of ‘Research Administrator’ with Vanson Bourne. The three staged recruitment process was nothing out of the ordinary for an entry level graduate role. The first stage was an initial phone conversation. The second was a face-to-face interview. The final stage was another face-to-face interview accompanied by an assessed presentation. Please find my account of the experience below. The first two stages were pleasant and were conducted by the same line manager. I was asked run-of-the-mill queries concerning my mid-term career goals, interest in the role and the value I believed I would add. The final stage was attended by two senior members of the company and not the initial line manager I met. I was not told until my arrival at the office for the final stage that there would be an assessed task of preparing and delivering a presentation to two senior members of the company. Whilst this was certainly a surprise I saw it as no major disadvantage as the presentation was to encompass pre-determined data provided to you on the day. Once the allocated time to prepare the presentation elapsed I was joined by two senior company members whom begun by examining my CV and concluded by watching my presentation. It was at the final assessment stage events took a turn for the worse in what I can only describe as a good cop/bad cop cross examination. The good cop was pleasant and appeared genuinely interested in my ambitions regardless whether a role was ultimately offered or not. The bad cop appeared displeased which at such an early stage into the interview I was unable to determine was provoked by me or an unrelated incident prior to attending the interview. I had consciously opted to omit a year on my CV due to changing course and institution. Whilst I passed the courses initial year of study I felt an incomplete qualification was a redundant inclusion. The bad cop was evidently proud at discovering a chronological gap in my CV that they unequivocally deemed as a poor attempt at masking failure. More so, to emphasise their disdain with my ultimate choice of course and institution they benchmarked my educational pathway as a low in comparison to that of their own son. It was at this point the good cop stepped in and suggested we moved on to the presentation task. As I presented I couldn’t help but notice that the bad cop was still heavily fixated on my CV with a frown of disdain. It was evident they were unhappy about being prematurely cut off mid diatribe. Ultimately, the bad cop outspokenly remarked mid-presentation that they believed my CV was prepared by someone with a much greater command of the English language than that of the person presenting before them today. This led to the good cop exclaiming to their colleague in disbelief that ‘you cannot say that’. This was met with the retort ‘I can say as I like’. It was under these heated circumstances I was asked to continue my presentation. It goes without saying that this overwhelmingly negative and awkward experience left me no longer interested in the company. To throw in a little context, the interviewers were aware that I had completed my undergraduate degree less than a month prior and that I was working in retail part-time to meet expenses. I felt the approach was uncalled for, particularly toward someone ambitiously striving to embark on their career. Equally, it was an early-on educational eye opener into how some interviews can go. Non-surprisingly I was unsuccessful. I received a template rejection letter physically in the post approximately one week later. Given that I knew first-hand the company was not shy from providing bespoke commentary I felt a templated letter was unjust and requested a specific response. This feedback was provided over the phone by a representative and not by either of the two senior members that held the final stage. I was told that I exhibited unwillingness to permanently relocate (on an entry level position) and that it was believed a daily commute to Newbury would diminish my enthusiasm to fulfil the role. I found this perplexing on two accounts. Firstly, my location was clearly stated on my CV before being considered for the first stage. Secondly, the response did not correlate with any of the remarks made during the final recruitment stage. I felt the response was irrelevant and evasive of the events that occurred. I must stress that these events unfolded in 2013 and not 2016. However, upon discovery of Glassdoor and due to the strong significance the experience carries whenever I intend to attend interviews I felt a justified need to document my experience. I retain the rejection letter to this day as a tangible memento of how unpleasant the recruitment process can potentially be with this particular experience setting a yet unsurpassed benchmark.