I had applied online. A recruiter called me after a phone interview. He then sent me to a job fair. Where we had 4 test. A written, kitty test, a personality test, then a building test. All were pretty easy. They told me a recruiter would call me for the next steps. I accepted the job offer.

I received an out-of-area call from a recruiter speaking broken English, he was enthusiastic about an opportunity requiring a small commute, I reluctantly accepted because I knew I was qualified. I arrived to the job site, to learn for the first time that it would be a group interview. I had to sign a non-disclosure agreement and give over my personal information prior to checking in. This could have sensibly been accomplished using the temp agency, but was not. The group of about 10 candidates was greeted by someone other than who I was told to ask for, and the group of interviewees was escorted through a cubicle farm into a meeting room. We were given a brief history of the company, specifically how it became a rockstar overnight and achieved a value of $4 million dollars within the first 10 years of operation or something. This would be impressive to the average joe, but its hard for me to take such success seriously because I know how much regulations ironically shield corporations from the free market. The interviewer was sure to let us know its important to do our job properly because of FDA regulations (not because we have pride in our work, or anything like that). The company uses temp agencies to bypass various labor laws, taxes, paperwork, etc. I would be much more impressed to hear about how the company struggled for decades before finally making a break in the market and attracting investors. I have been to several group interviews in my life, but what followed can better be described as a potential script for a bad reality TV show. There were four rounds of tests, and after each test those who failed were to be "escorted" out of the building. The first test accomplished nothing but eliminate the low hanging fruit and sow the seeds of authority, asking the interviewee to define words such as "attendance", "instructions", "tardy" and divide 12 by 3. I managed the next dexterity test using brute force and luck, I passed the first time around but didn't finish when practicing a second time. I suspect it would have been easier using the tweezers provided, but technique was left vague on purpose. You shouldn't select your employees based on a test which can be completed by chance, as I had done. During the interview, various employees moseyed in and out of the conference room, keeping themselves busy in observing the group. I had made it to the final test! We were down to three candidates left, so the pressure was on. The final test should have honestly been the only test, as anyone with the capacity to pass this test would no doubt also pass the others. They instructed us to mount some pulleys to a chassis, then snake a cable. A technician in a lab coat was lurking behind me breathing down my neck, he was hovering so close to me he actually bumped my chair during the test! The assembly was small, so I was have having trouble getting the cable threaded onto the pulley in time. I figured out a way to switch a few steps to make my job much easier. It seemed as if the instructions were written in a way that makes them easiest to depict and interpret, rather than combining a few steps to make it easier to work with your hands. I threaded the cable onto the pulley before mounting the pulley, instead of struggling to thread the cable through a tiny gap onto the already mounted pulley as instructed. I doubt whoever created this test works with this particular assembly on a regular basis. I ended up reversing some of my work to show that it could be completed this way, but I wasted time in doing so and the interviewer insisted I had to pass the test per instruction. By this point, I had spent a few hours jumping through hoops for this company, so I was frustrated and walked out before the test was over. I didn't think I would be valued at the company, as a good technician is one that can recognize potential flaws and come up with alternative processes. This was something I did successfully several times at my prior assembly job before quitting. Everything up to this point indicated to me that they were only interested in someone who could slug through the work day and divide 12 by 3. The company took several hours out of the day, but didn't think it worthwhile to quiz us on anything like mechanics, electronics, or something beyond elementary arithmetic. I understand this is an assembly position, but I've experienced less renowned companies screen for assemblers this way. It feels like a waste of what I've studied. Although I haven't been to school, it's easier than ever to learn on your own, and I would like for my job to reflect that attitude. My advice to the company is to not have such a nerve-racking interview process, you might be passing up good candidates because the experience honestly felt highly contrived and impersonal.