[The following is from an undergrad, who wishes to remain anonymous. Brad Holian sent it on to yours truly, -Pat.]-----I was happy to read about your stand against mandatory polygraph examination at LANL. It resonated very personally with me.I'm a physics undergrad student at [a prestigious California school], but this upcoming summer, I was considering interning at the CIA. I applied in June on a whim, and got a conditional offer of employment in about August after a phone interview and a bunch of paperwork. In October, they flew me up to Washington to do all their screening for clearance, most of which seemed to revolve around the lengthy polygraph examinations. I was greatly opposed to needing to do that, as I've long considered them to be pseudoscientific hoopla.When it came time for me to have my examination, it began with a long discussion with the examiner. He asked me what I knew about the polygraph, and I explained what I knew about it's operation...how in monitored breathing rate, skin conductance...etc. I then expressed my belief that there was little to no evidence for a strong correlation between their tests and truthfulness. I also noted that it couldn't be used in a court of law, and that I thought it was strange it was used in screening by the CIA. He reassured me that he'd had a lot of training and all sorts of professional certifications, and that there was hard science backing the whole thing.After he ran the test a couple times, he said that I wasn't passing all of the questions. He asked me which questions stood out in my mind. I said, "have no clue; one of the controls made me feel kind of funny." He immediately became suspicious, and pressed me as to where I'd learned the term "control," as if it were unequivocal proof I was a spy trained to crack his magic machine. He pressed me as to whether I'd researched the polygraph in preparation for the test. I said I'd certainly read about how it worked in the past, and reiterated my skepticism in its methods. He warned that he doesn't even bother to waste his time with people who refuse to be cooperative.At this point, I'd become very frustrated. He tested me once more, and then interrogated me for about an hour. There was nothing more I felt I needed to reveal to him. I told him that it was all just a psychological tactic, and they might as well use "good cop, bad cop" as they were both conceived for the same thing. He soon afterwards said we were finished. As a result, they asked me to retake the polygraph a second time. At this point, I'd already been interrogated for four hours, and was barely willing to go along with it. I had come to find the technique insulting.The second examiner, whom had obviously been informed of my performance the previous day, noted my background in physics, said stuff to the effect of I'm sure your a pretty sharp guy and all that sort of banter. He gave me a pep talk on why I should have trust in their technique, how it had been perfected for decades, and mentioned they were doing me a favor by giving me a second chance. The second time went no better, and I left exhausted and dreadfully unhappy.A couple weeks ago I got a letter from them informing me that my offer of employment had been rescinded, I would assume because of how I acted at the polygraph. I wasn't terribly unhappy, as I'd already decided I'd rather do physics this summer than work for them, and I'd already begun looking for other summer programs. I can understand how irritating it must be to be forced to do this to do science.Thanks and I wish you luck.-Anonymous Undergrad