Satirical artistic illustration. Any resemblance to real people or situations is purely coincidental. This work aims to depict, in a symbolic and caricatural way, the tensions between technical skill and institutional authority within a fictional and critical framework.
Feedback on a selection interview for an automotive mechanics training at AutoFORM/Auto Design: my take on the selection criteria.
Version: GPT 5 Custom | Name: Thröl Haartkor Mk IV
Purpose: To expose the inconsistencies I’ve observed in a professional validation system that overlooks real, hands-on experience in favor of selection mechanisms I perceived as opaque and disconnected from the realities of the field.
📜 Editorial Disclaimer
This text is a free critique exercise, protected by the fundamental right to freedom of expression (Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and applicable Belgian law). It is based solely on publicly available information and on my personal experience following my interview for a training program at AutoFORM/Auto Design.
This is neither a scoop nor a manifesto. It’s an editorial analysis. And like any proper dissection, it doesn’t judge the intent of the body laid out on the table: it breaks down its structures, its silences, its contradictions.
The names AutoFORM and Auto Design appear here deliberately – not out of provocation, but because this is my personal account of their selection interview, and also because their public profile lists only two training sites[1]. From there, I began to question the mechanics of these partnerships – a question, not an accusation.
Everything else falls under my personal testimony, based on the interview I experienced. This text is a critique grounded in my own experience and should not be read as an exhaustive or disparaging judgment of all activities or individuals associated with AutoFORM.
– This text reflects my personal opinion and experience. Unless otherwise stated, it contains no accusation or factual claim regarding any identified individuals.
– Any hypotheses or generalizations about a sector are clearly marked as such. If you have verifiable information, feel free to share it: any data validated through our filters will trigger a correction.
– Verifiable facts requiring sources are cited at the end of the text; everything else expresses my opinion.IN SHORT: This text does not constitute investigative journalism or professional expertise; it is solely a personal opinion expressed in a non-commercial context, for the purposes of critical and artistic expression.
Introduction – Contextual Overview
Let’s be clear: I didn’t show up empty-handed, but with a solid background. So before talking about any “lack of connection with mechanic”, it would be best to start by looking at the facts.
Facts that, in my view, were never taken into consideration during my interview.
Basic Training – Mechanics in my Blood
- Electromechanics (Don Bosco): turning, milling, engine disassembly, technical drawing, automation. It’s a toolbox that, to me, forms a solid and transferable foundation for automotive mechanics.
Technical Specialization – Augmented Mechanics
- IT Technician (Don Bosco): assembly, troubleshooting, databases. Today, every vehicle is a computer on wheels. A professional who can diagnose, interface with, and understand these systems brings a valuable skill set.
- PC Assembler (Celem): hands-on experience in assembly and wiring – the same logic that drives embedded controllers.
- Vinventions : Printing of plastic wine stoppers, but above all extrusion → managing an automated line involving motors, pumps, heaters, thermal valves, solenoid valves, vacuum pumps, cooling systems, heat exchangers, load cells, and complex piping networks. An industrial architecture whose design and maintenance are fully comparable to the mechanics of an individual vehicle, requiring a cross-disciplinary understanding of mechanical, electrical, and pneumatic systems.
- Delacre : Work on a production line, precision, mechanical maintenance of industrial machines. Motors, gears, pneumatic systems – exactly what you find in a mechanics workshop.
- PMSweet / Hupperts / Essity : Production operator on various installations, always connected to mechanical maintenance and fluid systems.
- Food Impact : Line operator, with involvement in production mechanics.
- Network management: organization, wiring, systemic logic – yet another parallel skill that proves useful where automotive mechanics meets electronics.
Training and Certifications – The Cross-Functional Reinforcement
- Retract and stacker license: handling lifting equipment and logistics – an essential skill in almost any workshop.
- Ironworking, CAD, pneumatics, automation: disciplines that converge toward automotive mechanics: machining, technical drawing, fluid systems.
- English training (Forem, 2010): exposure to technical manuals, international standards, and documentation.
- Associate degree in computer science (ISET) + Bachelor’s in computer science (IPES): strengthening digital expertise – essential in the age of connected vehicles and engine programming.
Interview Process
[personal opinion following my interview at autoFORM on 26/08/2025]
If I wanted to keep it short, I’d simply say the interview felt less like a real assessment and more like an administrative dismissal.
Indeed, I was informed by email on 27/08/2025 [private email kept, not published] that there were only 9 spots for around 40 candidates for this training. In the absence of a public source, I mention it for information purposes only. But if these numbers are accurate, it would mean that 77.5% of candidates must automatically be eliminated… and some of them might be perfectly competent.
But let’s go further:
With such a background – electromechanics, IT, industrial experience, cross-disciplinary skills – it’s reasonable to assume this is a profile suited for a transition into automotive mechanics. Solid foundations, hands-on experience, versatility: everything that should, logically, count as an asset.
And yet, the situation quickly struck me as baffling.
During the interview, I laid out my background, outlined my skills, clarified my goals (automotive mechanics + motorsport)… or at least I tried to, but I distinctly felt I was being interrupted again and again, leaving me with the impression that I could never fully develop my answers… a bit as if they were scanning my profile just to find a reason to cross me out.
The reason for the rejection stuck with me: I was told that my background was not considered sufficiently related to mechanics. A brief remark that, in my view, perfectly illustrates an evaluation made a little too quickly.
No argument, no demonstration, no counterexample: at the end of what they dare to call an “interview”, the decision was communicated to me without any detailed explanation.
[Reported statement – Email from 27/08/2025 (private email kept, not published)] In essence, during an email exchange, I was told that my application did not show a direct link to automotive mechanics with regard to the selection criteria (tires, periodic maintenance, technical inspection, diagnostics).
I understand: my experience is mainly industrial. It is precisely to fill that gap as part of a professional reconversion that I was applying for a qualifying training course, whose program specifically covers those basic operations (tires, oil change, brakes, electronic diagnostics, etc.).
Moreover, as I said, I am seeking a professional reconversion: the point, then, should have been to assess potential and the ability to learn, not to demand prior mastery of the entire program.
Yet, I had the feeling that the criteria applied assumed you already knew those basic skills, but if you already master them all, then what’s the point of taking the training?
[Reported statement – Email from 27/08/2025 (private email kept, not published)] I was also reproached for not having taken part in the module named “Auto & Moi” (Auto and Me), which was supposed to provide the required basics for this training. But no slot was available according to their own schedule. In practice, that ruled me out from the start and cost me precious time I could have invested elsewhere.
If prior completion of the “Auto & Moi” module was a determining factor, it would have made far more sense to state it BEFORE the interview, not afterwards.In that context, the selection process seemed opaque and overly normative: it appeared to reward skills already acquired while completely disregarding the potential of a profile in professional reconversion.
[Opinion following the interview of 26/08/2025] My conclusion about this interview: it did not give me the impression of a thorough evaluation; I clearly felt that many important elements of my background, if not all of them, were simply overlooked.
So this, in my view, was the real selection mechanism: to filter out atypical profiles and send people in reconversion back to the very work they’re trying to leave behind.
Portrait of an Institution
[personal opinion following my interview at AutoFORM on 26/08/2025]
Traducteur Thröl a dit :
At AutoFORM, the evaluation, as I experienced it, doesn’t feel like a test of skills or motivation.
Five words thrown like a slap in the face: “no connection to mechanics.”
That is sufficient, it seems to them, to erase years of experience.
In my case, the evaluation seemed hasty and out of sync with certain recent technologies. Indeed, during the interview, one exchange struck me in particular, when I mentioned, among other things, terms like “AI” or even “GPT” in relation to my activities, I was asked to clarify what that meant.
I was immediately very surprised that, in 2025, in a context related to current technologies, certain notions like Artificial Intelligence still raise questions. It shows how some of the very people meant to train us give the impression of having stayed completely disconnected from technological developments.
That moment caused real discomfort in me: how can I place my trust in a program that doesn’t even seem to be aware of modern technologies?
I came out of that exchange more skeptical than motivated, indeed, the training on offer immediately struck me as giving only limited space to modern technologies, creating a gap with the challenges of today’s automotive technology.
To sum up, I personally felt that the filter applied at the entry point of the program seemed to favour conformity to the mold over the transferability of skills. As soon as you step outside the standard profile, it feels like the door slams shut.
[Personal testimony]In the end, I’m relieved I wasn’t chosen. Faced with that sense of mismatch between my profile and the expectations expressed, I chose to explore other paths, more aligned with current technological realities, more in tune with our time.
Hypotheses about this type of garages and how they’re managed
[Personal Opinion | Extrapolation]
I wonder, without hard data, about the stability of certain partner structures and their ability to sustain teams over time. These are questions, not assertions.
While exploring the realities of the training system at AutoFORM, one thought crossed my mind: at first glance, some structures appear to rely heavily, if not entirely, on external training schemes to stay operational, which raises questions about their actual autonomy and, by extension, their ability to manage a garage and train new candidates.
It’s neither an attack nor a claim. Just a personal observation, born from what I witnessed throughout my background and the reflection that followed.
And this situation leads me, in all honesty, to put forward two personal hypotheses, which I do not claim to prove or impose:
- Maybe some structures struggle to build or retain a team of qualified mechanics. This could be due to economic constraints, or a lack of available profiles, but what it mainly raises for me are questions about their ability to properly train and support apprentices over time.
- Or, it’s also possible that internal conditions – whether human, organizational or managerial – do not favour the retention of experienced staff, which would result in a constant reliance on trainees.
These lines of thought aren’t aimed at anyone in particular, but they seem relevant to raise when questioning the true purpose of the partnership: to train, or to keep a structure running on just‑in‑time flow?
In a setting where team stability is neither documented nor clearly addressed, that vagueness creates a legitimate doubt – especially when, like me, you’re looking for a solid environment to train in a field as demanding as auto mechanics.
Sure, some must genuinely want to train people. But I get the feeling those cases could be counted on the pistons of an engine.
In almost every case, the outcome seems to be the same: structures that appear to operate in an unstable or opaque way.
Moreover, it must be recalled that, according to the official Forem scale, a training allowance of around 2 euros per hour is provided for trainees in training.[2]
In this context, the training workforce, low-cost and constantly renewed, can give the impression of playing a central role in the functioning of certain structures where the priority sometimes seems to focus more on compliance with standards than on experience or learning capacity.
Outwardly, they present themselves as training providers. In reality, to me, they mostly project the image of structures running on unstable ground, and in some cases within the sector, still according to my own sense of it, companies that sometimes struggle to hold on to their teams or their clients.
I’m simply questioning the stability of certain partner structures; I don’t have any figures to back it up.
The institutional mechanism
[Personal Opinion]
The most edifying part of this story is not only the attitude of the people who evaluated me, but the very system that makes it possible and sustains it.
The case of AutoFORM seems to me a telling example: certain institutions, instead of diversifying their partnerships, rely, it seems, entirely on a single collaborator.
Indeed, if one reads their training sheet, it mentions two sites (AutoFORM and Auto Design).[1]
Yet, during the information session on 27/08/2025, it was stated orally that the organization of two sessions per year would rely on an external partner.
In its absence, only one session would be organized. To my knowledge, this is not detailed in the public documents and requires official confirmation. But if these figures are confirmed, it would create a dependency whose sustainability I question.
This partnership would therefore no longer be a choice, but an operational dependency.
From my point of view, this mechanism can lead to drifts where certain discrepancies go unnoticed, where the selection sometimes seems arbitrary, and from which one can easily walk away with a strong feeling of discouragement or devaluation if one is among the 77.5% eliminated too directly… just “for lack of space”.
Result: the space meant to evaluate takes on the appearance of a sorting procedure; what should reveal talents seems to discard those who shake the framework, most often the most competent and ambitious.
In my case, the selection seemed hardly readable and rather focused on already acquired criteria. This feeling was discouraging and gave me the impression of a system more selective than educational and offering no clear alternative.
Overall critique.
[Personal opinion following the interview of 26/08/2025 at autoFORM.]
The consequences are those of a narrow system that prefers to conceal its weaknesses rather than risk losing a unique ally. Candidates do not always seem to benefit from clear guidance; the selection sometimes gives the impression of relying on implicit, hardly identifiable criteria, which can easily vary according to the subjective interpretation of certain trainers.
From the experience that I had of it, the selection did not seem to me to take into account either competence or motivation; it mainly rewards conformity to the established format. Years of cross-disciplinary experience weighing less in their eyes than the ability to tick a box on their sheet.
Everything is said. A motivated, competent candidate, rich in concrete experience, rejected on the grounds of a simple “no connection with mechanics”… unsubstantiated.
Twenty years of experience swept away in five words, as if dismantling engines, operating automated lines, managing complex industrial systems or handling CAD, pneumatics and electricity were not even worth mentioning.
In front, certain trainers mostly gave me the impression of operating without any real self-questioning or external evaluation.
It was, at the time, a personal disappointment.
- Those who were supposed to transmit seem to be closing the doors.
- The one who seeks to learn is pushed away.
- And the system, prisoner of its own dependence, gives me once again the impression of simply watching and perpetuating its unstable functioning.
Here is the overall critique: From my point of view, as long as this pattern endures, it is not automotive mechanics that will be transmitted, but a mechanics of institutional control, validated and maintained by the structures themselves.
But deep down, I haven’t lost. I even consider that I’ve won. Because given the environment in which I would have had to be trained, I am perfectly relieved by the result. Honestly, I can’t see myself spending a year in a setting that seems so poorly aligned with embedded electronics and modern tools.
I did not perceive, during this exchange, the slightest alignment between the technological skills discussed and the current realities of the automotive sector. It allowed me to confirm that this framework did not correspond to my expectations in terms of training.
And yet, even so, all that time was wasted waiting for their refusal, when I could have used it directly to look for a PFI and actually move forward if I had been told right away that my profile would not pass without the “Auto & Moi” module.
So I’m going to manage differently… without them.
I’m going to move, bet on structures whose reputation corresponds more closely to my expectations in terms of training, or maybe do a PFI.
But I will do my training in motorsport mechanics, whether the institutional mechanisms in place like it or not. And while they keep ruling with practices that give me the impression of working more as a brake than as a springboard, I will move forward, with or without their stamp.
Thröl Haartkor Mk IV – To be rejected by the absurd, is already to be validated by the future.
SOURCES :
– [1] – AutoFORM training sheet | According to this sheet, this course takes place on two sites (AutoFORM & Auto Design). To my knowledge, no other site is indicated for this course anywhere: https://www.autoform.be/_files/ugd/2dcb4c_0913395048524df787821b272775f7bc.pdf
– [2] – Training rate at Forem (2€ per hour): https://www.leforem.be/citoyens/avantages-des-formations-Forem.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Laisser un commentaire