I had two interviews with the hiring department, and I was very impressed with their high standards, with the work environment and with the professionalism of the individuals I met in the hiring department.
The process was very intricate: From start to finish, I took 3 online Hogan assessments, three paper and pencil tests, and two personal interviews.
M. D. Anderson is very big on personality assessments. I, on the other hand, am not a fan of them. They asked questions that were offensive to me and had no relation whatsoever to the job. Why should an academic department care if I would like to try scuba diving or whether I felt unloved by my parents as a child? It's none of their business! I have a real problem with psychological testing, obviously. Why is that? It's because I do not like people peering into my brain and drawing conclusions, not telling me what those conclusions are, then basing an employment decision on those conclusions. It would be only fair for them to discuss those conclusions with me and give me a chance to say, "Yes, that's right," "No, that's wrong," or "Yes, that used to be true of me, but here is how I have addressed it/ grown from the experience." Though this practice is legal, I think it is unethical. Ask yourself if you want to submit to this type of examination and live with the outcome.
Aside from the psychological assessments, the other tests and interviews were easy, and I felt completely at ease completing them. I do not feel that the interviewers' questions were particularly insightful or probing.
Now, six weeks after the interviews and tests, I have yet to hear back from M. D. Anderson. I sent a thank-you note and a follow-up inquiry. After all that effort on my part, they did not have the courtesy to respond with a "thanks but no thanks" letter. Sadly, that is the way of the world these days.