The process consisted of four rounds: an interview with two directors, an HR interview, a technical Excel test and case study at the London office, and a final interview with a Managing Director. Each stage was well-structured, and the interviewers were professional and engaging. I passed every round, including the technical assessments, and was progressed to the next stage each time without issue. During the HR interview, I was told at length about the firm's values and how the standards the founders set for themselves are the standards they hold across the entire organisation. That sentiment did not carry through to the candidate experience. The problems began after the final round. Following the MD interview, I heard absolutely nothing for over ten days. No update, no timeline, no acknowledgement. I had to chase the recruiter myself to get any response. When she did eventually reply, she said she had been unwell and would send feedback "today." That feedback never arrived. I chased again. Nothing. I eventually had to text her directly to get any response at all. She then suggested a call, which also fell through due to "poor reception." After yet another prompt from me, the written feedback finally came through - approximately three weeks after the final interview. The rejection itself was confusing. Feedback from all interviewers was described as "largely positive", and I was told I came across as driven, ambitious, and professional with strong transferable skills. However, the reason given for not extending an offer was that my "academic knowledge doesn't adequately align with what the role entails." I study Politics at an undergraduate level, which is clear on my CV from the very first application. Every interviewer knew this. I was taken through five rounds of interviews and a technical assessment over the course of several weeks, with this information readily available. If academic background was a dealbreaker, it should have been flagged at CV screening, not after a month-long process. When I asked for further clarification on this point, none was provided. This entire process took place while I was in the middle of writing my dissertation. I restructured my schedule, prepared extensively for each round, and put other applications on hold because I was led to believe I was a serious candidate. To invest that level of time and energy only to be met with weeks of silence and a contradictory rejection is demoralising. Candidates are not disposable. We have deadlines, competing offers, and lives that don't pause while a firm takes three weeks to send a templated rejection email. The least any company can do after five rounds of interviews is communicate a decision promptly and honestly. The interviews themselves were fair, and the interviewers were knowledgeable. I have no issue with the assessment process. But the post-interview experience was among the most frustrating I have encountered, and the disconnect between the values the firm promotes and how it actually treats candidates was stark. I would advise future candidates to set clear expectations on decision timelines at the final interview stage and not to pause other opportunities while waiting.