Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Interview Questions
& Process

I applied in August and it took two weeks to hear back from the recruiter to schedule a phone screen. The initial screen went well and she said I would be hearing back about next steps shortly. Another week goes by and the hiring manager contacts me to set up a short video chat. This goes well and I am excited about the position. Two plus weeks goes by and I finally hear from the recruiter that she would like to schedule a writing test as well as the next step of the interview with two stakeholders. Great! I complete both and feel great about the work I have done. Then, radio silence. Finally two weeks later, I receive a basic, canned rejection email saying "we're moving forward with candidates we feel better align with the skills and background needed for the position". What a joke. After three rounds of interviews and a couple hour writing assessment, all I get is a templatized email? Also, they couldn't even be bothered to adjust the language in the email? Because if after three rounds of interviews you still think my background apparently isn't aligned with what you're looking for, you've messed up, not me. Dana Farber is truly doing some incredible work to eradicate cancer, but their recruiters and hiring process need some serious work.

The interview process was quite lengthy and increasingly frustrating. The first round was a standard HR screening call, followed by a second interview with the hiring manager (the supervisor) and a third with the PI overseeing the department. After those rounds, I was asked to provide seven total references, including two past supervisors and my current supervisor. I politely declined to include my current supervisor since no offer had been extended (something most employers understand and respect) and instead provided three past supervisors and a current colleague. In response, the company scheduled a fourth round of interviews with both the hiring manager and the PI, where the discussion focused on questioning why I wouldn’t provide my current supervisor’s contact. During that conversation, they also admitted all 6 of my references gave glowing reviews and that they were also still considering two other candidates. At that point, I lost interest in the role. The process felt overly rigid and invasive, especially considering I had already provided six strong references. Requesting seven references and insisting on contacting a current supervisor before an offer is made is not standard practice and can be harmful to a candidate’s current employment situation. Being unwilling to provide your current employer’s contact prior to an offer is not a sign of poor relationships—it’s a matter of professional discretion and self-preservation. Every department is difference, but I would strongly advise future candidates to ask how far along they are in the process before sharing references, as this company’s approach was excessive and inconsiderate.

This job was easy to get into since it's an entry level position. They really cared about if I would fit in with the team and if I had good customer service skills. They want to hire people who genuinely want to help others and make a difference. Usually there's a screening call with a recruiter, but this time the supervisor reached out to me directly for a zoom interview.

First, there was an HR call for about 15 minutes. The next round was with the hiring manager, which covered both behavioral and technical aspects and felt easy and friendly. Finally, I had a panel interview with two senior BI analysts. This round was entirely behavioral questions. One of the interviewers seemed impatient and disrespectful, didn't follow up on my answers, and played with her hair throughout. She didn't even let me introduce myself and ended the interview early, before 30 minutes of the scheduled 30-45 minutes. I was disappointed with the team and had a bad experience.