had a somewhat bizarre experience in an initial recruiter conversation, where during the call i realized that the role was not what i had perceived it to be from the description. as the conversation started, i noticed that the behavioral questions weren't concerning types of work i'd done in the past. after probing more about the details of the role, i realized this position was not something aligned to my background. no problem - at this point i was ready to wind down the conversation. strangely, however, this individual thought it made sense to instead spend ~15 minutes giving me unsolicited feedback on my interviewing style. the exchange was friendly and i obliged. it was just super weird in the moment because, from my assessment, the conversation did not go well because 1) the job description was poorly conceived and inaccurate 2) my experience must have not been evaluated thoroughly enough before the call, not because i did or didnt have certain interview skills it was an overall friendly exchange but reflecting on it, i think the gall to offer (rather rudimentary) suggestions for interviewing to someone who was taken by surprise by unexpected questions stemming from a misleading job description, was a certainly a choice. if your team needs someone to fill a role in a specific, specialized capacity then that should be super clear in the job description beyond very broad bullet points that could be applied to any number of roles. that sort of lack of prep doesn't leave a great impression, wastes everyone's time, and certainly doesn't lend itself to patronizing candidates who spend a lot of time and energy preparing

I am considered for the first round of interview on campus by attending a career fair. The interview is based on a case study where you have to do a simple maths problem in ~30 minutes.