Overall Experience: My experience with IBM's interview process for the UI/UX Designer position in the Data & AI Department was a mixed one. While the initial two technical rounds went smoothly and I felt confident in my responses, the third and final round left me with some concerns. Technical Rounds: The initial two technical rounds were conducted professionally, and the interviewers seemed genuinely interested in my background, experience, and skills related to UI/UX design. The questions were relevant and challenging, but I felt adequately prepared for them. I appreciated the opportunity to discuss my design portfolio and provide detailed answers to their inquiries. These rounds created a positive impression of IBM's commitment to hiring skilled professionals in the UI/UX field. Manager Round: However, the third round, conducted by a manager, was a stark contrast to the previous rounds. From the beginning, I sensed a certain level of disinterest and detachment from the interview process on the manager's part. Despite my best efforts to engage and articulate my experience, the manager did not seem keen on delving deeper into my qualifications or discussing my design work in detail. Additional Concerns: During the third round, I couldn't help but notice a potential bias in the evaluation process. It appeared that there might have been a specific agenda in mind when conducting interviews, which could involve recruiting individuals with prior connections or affiliations. This perception was reinforced by the observation that many individuals in the department appeared to have come from the same company or were linked to a mentorship program. Lack of Objectivity: This observation raised concerns about the objectivity of the interview process. It's crucial that all candidates are evaluated fairly and impartially based on their qualifications and potential contributions to the organization. Machine Test for Designers: One notable aspect of the interview process was the absence of a machine test for designers. Many organizations use such tests to assess a candidate's practical skills and abilities in a real-world context. The absence of this element raised questions about the thoroughness of the evaluation process and the desire to effectively assess candidates. In conclusion, while the initial technical rounds of the interview process at IBM Data & AI Department were professional and promising, the manager round left me with concerns about the fairness and effectiveness of the evaluation process. Addressing potential biases and considering the inclusion of a machine test for designers would be crucial steps to ensure a better candidate experience and a more accurate assessment of future UI/UX Designer candidates in the Data & AI Department at IBM.