[adnanazadsg]

This was a very different scenario though. The intent was a legitimate research. I feel like OP is more looking for a justification for something he knows is wrong.

Even if it was conducted purely for research, the findings wouldn't really be interesting. Results for whether a company gives you a callback if you add experience they are explicitly seeking is hardly going to be surprising.

[mchannon]

We don't want to act on our feelings without corroborating evidence.

I'd find the results interesting, regardless of how slipshod the methodology was. Nonetheless, I'd hope you're wondering this in the name of research and not in the hopes of landing that job through your deception.

I believe you're overlooking the elephant in the room: 15 years' experience in anything. Banks don't want to hire people with that much experience because they're ageist. Most feel (rightly or wrongly) that fresh college graduates will tolerate miserable hours and working conditions and turn out comparable code.

Perhaps a 2-dimensional analysis where you impersonate people with 3 years' experience (in credit unions or in big banks) and a graduation date immediately prior. I believe you'll soon discover it's not about where the experience is, but how much the experience is.

Now THAT would be a study worth reading.

[muzani]

OP said they did meet the experience the company was explicitly seeking. Since there's no callbacks it has to be something else.

[adnanazadsg]

" the company won't hire unless you have experience in a big bank"

Seems like this is the requirement the candidate doesn't meet - although its unstated.

If the issue was sex, race or age it would me a legitimate "study" but in this case, it'd be just lying about experience to get the job.