Assessment Process Is Disconnected From Reality – Extremely Poor Candidate Experience Role applied for: Android Developer Location: Remote / Netherlands Status: Application rejected after assessment I recently completed Bunq’s candidate screening process, and unfortunately, it was one of the most frustrating and dehumanizing hiring experiences I’ve ever encountered in my 10+ years in the tech industry. The process consisted of a so-called “Neurolytics scan” where: You’re shown pre-recorded culture videos and rated on facial expressions and emotional reactions by an AI model. You take a time-boxed general knowledge, numerical, logical, and analytical reasoning test — 20 questions per section, each under 2 minutes 30 seconds. Your stress quotient, engagement, and pressure-handling ability are evaluated by analyzing video recordings of your face, without ever talking to a human. There was zero technical screening. No code test, no system design round, no Android-specific evaluation — just AI-based behavioral analysis and cognitive puzzles. The results? A rejection email telling me I didn’t meet the “threshold” for culture fit or stress tolerance. No feedback, no opportunity for conversation, and no chance to demonstrate the actual skills I’ve spent a decade building. This process is deeply flawed. It reduces experienced professionals to how well they can maintain facial neutrality, click through rapid-fire quizzes, and perform under artificial pressure. It says nothing about creativity, communication, teamwork, or real-world engineering performance. It’s exclusionary by design. Neuro-emotional reactions vary wildly based on neurodiversity, personality, and cultural background. This approach will inevitably screen out diverse thinkers who don’t conform to a narrow, AI-interpreted behavioral norm. And worst of all — it's cold, robotic, and devoid of human connection. I was never interviewed. I was never given a chance to speak to anyone about my experience, aspirations, or motivation. For a company that claims to value “freedom” and innovation, the process felt more like dystopian automation than progressive hiring. Bottom line: If you're a thoughtful, experienced professional looking to have meaningful conversations about your craft — this is not the place. Bunq’s current hiring process favors test-taking performance under surveillance, not real potential. My advice to Bunq: Bring back the human element. Algorithms don’t build great teams — people do.