The initial job posting listed an unusually large number of technologies for an entry level position, but I applied anyways. I feel that the recruiter I worked with didn't really understand the meaning behind particular job titles, which gave me some reservations. The position I applied for was referred to by 3 separate titles. I applied for a "Java developer - entry level" position, but my initial phone screening was for a "Developer / Integration Developer", while my technical interview was for a "Developer backend" position. Perhaps those things all refer to the same thing inside the company, but they have different implications to those on the outside, I'm not sure why consistent terminology isn't used. After a phone screening, I took an online assessment which included background questions and basic math problems. Some parts of the assessment were a waste of time. Even if I had provided drugs to a coworker or stolen from an employer in the past, I wouldn't admit it, regardless of the multiple ways the questions were presented. This was followed by an online Java technical assessment, which was fairly straightforward. I was then scheduled for an in-person technical interview, which was a disaster. I felt as if the interviewer had never seen my resume before, and was coming up with questions as we went along. As for the interview itself, I admittedly had trouble with some of the questions, which were more difficult than other technical interviews I've been through. However, some of them were on topics that I never claimed to have any knowledge of. I feel that my resume should've disqualified me from making it to the interview. No need to bring me in just so I can profess my ignorance of certain topics in person. The interviewer also asked me a question about basic Java terminology and told me my answer was incorrect. Researching on my own, I discovered that the explanation the interviewer gave conflicts with the official Java documentation. At the conclusion of the technical interview, I was told that I wasn't a match for the position, but that I might be considered for one of their more junior job openings in the future. I don't know what kind of job is junior to an entry-level position, but perhaps that job should be called "entry level" instead of the one I applied for.