While I was impressed with the candor and the overall impression from the onset, the interviews were annoyingly difficult. I found it hard to convince myself why I'd want to be apart of a shop focused on life sciences, an hour away from LA mainland, and not highly ranked for Strategy - other than above average pay. To be candid: They're not in LA, they're in Thousand Oaks, which is basically an hour away from the Westside. Not sure anyone wants to commute that much to be in an office all week and spend 10 hrs a week in commuting talking about life science. Tedious "by the book" questions make me feel like I was interviewing a dinosaur shop. "Tell me a time when the client delivered work was unsuccessful... (YAWN). C'mon it's 2016 - throw away the scripts - let's try harder and get to the core of your interviewer. I think the questions and the formal process spoke volumes about the organization (aka slow-moving, not progressive, and not nimble enough to make it in this competitive and crowded market of consulting firms). They're a life sciences shop, 90% of their business is in pharma and providers, so you need to have at least a mild desire to be in that field if you want to work w those clients day-in and day-out. I know I didn't. They claim they're analytically driven, but it doesn't come across they have the technology capabilities to match their so-called analytical prowess. They seem to prefer the types who want to spend weeks practicing cases, and can remember models of oratory vomit, just to look smart. The consultants I spoke to were OK. They don't come across as the big picture thinkers that I like to associate with - more in the weeds and bright kind of guys that have a hard time collaborating with people. The second consultant conducting the case was too cold and callous IMO, and did not seem to want to be interviewing anyone.