The candidate experience was generally positive. The team members I interacted with were kind, professional, and welcoming. The candidate hub was also a helpful resource and made it easier to understand the process, expectations, and next steps. The interview process felt heavier than necessary, particularly for the salary level of the role. I understand the need for a thoughtful hiring process, especially for mission-driven work, but the number of steps, exercise, and panel discussion felt more extensive than what seemed proportionate for the position. The process also felt heavy given the volume of applicants. If thousands of people are applying for a role, it may be worth closing the requisition sooner or tightening the screening process so candidates and interviewers are not investing unnecessary time. The panel interview could have been better structured. Several questions seemed redundant with the exercise I had already completed, which made parts of the conversation feel repetitive rather than additive. More interviewer training or a clearer distinction between the exercise and panel questions could improve the process. I also found the feedback frustrating because it referenced something I supposedly did not address, even though I clearly shared examples during the interview, including my experience working with students across different income levels and support needs. I respect not being selected, but feedback feels more useful when it accurately reflects what was discussed. Merit America has a strong candidate experience in many ways, and the people I met represented the organization well. The biggest opportunity is to make the interview process more focused, reduce redundancy between exercises and panel questions, calibrate the process to the level and salary of the role, and provide feedback that closely matches the actual interview conversation.