No recruiter phone screen, which I didn't mind, but it's usually nice to get an insider's information on what the team is looking for in more detail. Was set up for an hour long phone call with a Director for the first round which is odd for what is portrayed as entry-level/junior position. Conversation started off well and normal; however, towards the end was posed with a case study that quite honestly is hard to understand through a phone call with zero insight whatsoever into what data the team uses. It's almost as though they're wanting you to solve a puzzle without giving you puzzle pieces. This should have been pushed into a different round and sent beforehand to allow the candidate the review. It seems like they're setting candidates up for failure by springing this on in the very first call. At that moment, I knew I was bound to be rejected so I honestly laughed, quietly. Then I asked if having not had an exact or extensive background in Product Ops or Healthcare would hinder the candidate which I was told would not and that they prefer diverse backgrounds and will train you. This case study at the very beginning, on a phone call, states otherwise. It seems unproductive to waste the interviewer's and interviewee's time by placing a low-level applicant to chat with a somewhat C-level employee. The conversation will not amount to what they're used to hearing on a daily basis from similar level conversations so really they're bound to fail. If their resume clearly states this is not something they have extensive background in, put that in consideration. At the end of the day, you scheduled them for an interview for some reason knowing that. Doesn't make a person any less likely to succeed in the future, and it would, at the very least, allow them to have a chance. Know your audience, don't set people up for failure.