I completed three rounds of interviews — two remote video calls, first with a senior scientist and then with a managing scientist — and was subsequently invited for an onsite interview. Unfortunately, the organization of the onsite visit did not align with my expectations. Less than 24 hours before the interview, the schedule reshuffled, and the meeting was set in Natick during a January snowstorm, With a high risk of travel difficulties. In practice almost all of my conversations still were virtual, despite the travel. What added to the confusion was that the onsite location was neither the office I had applied to nor one where the team is primarily based. Even my host and another scientist had to travel from neighboring states to meet there, which made the arrangement feel inefficient. The HR interview was surprisingly strange. I was asked to discuss technical aspects of my research — essentially giving a brief technical overview — and to repeat information that was already included in my application. Although it mentioned that they already had all the info from my initial application form! many of the same questions were asked again. This interview felt unusual, as HR interviews are typically focused on administrative or cultural fit rather than technical evaluation

first + second rounds and then in person interview. They want to see how you connect your work with theirs. team is great and they are a pleasure to talk to.

The interview process spanned three months from the initial phone screen to the final round, largely due to slow and inconsistent communication from HR. Responses often took weeks, and when they did arrive, they were typically to say more time was needed to schedule the next step. The first round was a 30-minute phone interview with someone who had joined Exponent about two years prior. The second round was a virtual interview with a principal-level scientist. The final on-site round felt excessive for the position. It lasted seven hours and included: A one-hour technical presentation with Q&A; Individual meetings with seven interviewers; A lunch session. Most interviewers were professional and well-prepared. Senior staff in particular asked thoughtful, well-structured questions and provided sufficient context. However, two interviewers, both relatively new, stood out for the wrong reasons. One seemed to attempt a McKinsey case-interview style question without proper setup, leaving it confusing and irrelevant to the role. Another focused the entire session on a topic I had already disclosed was outside my expertise, showing no interest in exploring other areas of my skills or knowledge. Overall, while some parts of the process were fair and constructive, the length, HR delays, and unprofessional behavior from certain interviewers made the experience unnecessarily frustrating.