When I interviewed for a Recruitment and Admissions Rep position at Per Scholas’ campus in Newark, NJ in March 2021, the interview process was so ridiculously pretentious and overwrought that it seemed as if I were applying for the organization’s CEO spot. Keep in mind that the salary for the rep spot was a paltry $42,000. (Ordinarily, I would never apply for a job with such a ridiculously low salary, but seeing as I was between jobs, and Per Scholas seemed ripe with opportunity, my plan was to bite the bullet for a short season and then earn a promotion to a management position.) In our first conversation, the Managing Director told me that she was the sole person in her admissions department, which surprised me. Puzzled, I asked her why she and her prior admissions recruiters had parted ways. Her reply was somewhat vague; moreover, her explanation of the position’s responsibilities, available resources, and metrics also lacked clarity. I started to suspect that the role consists of three jobs condensed into one. Though I was determined to complete the interview process, these three red flags and the position’s very low salary were warning bells indicating that I should seek employment elsewhere. I earned promotions from Admissions Rep to Assistant Director of Admissions and Director of Admissions in my extensive higher education experience. Whether I’m the hiring manager or applicant, I do well in a one-on-one or group interview. Admissions or recruiter positions require no more than two interviews; however, Per Scholas so highly esteems this role that its interview process consists of four meetings, with the third and the last conducted by two persons and a panel of five, respectively. But wait—it gets better! Not only did I have to field questions from the Star Chamber—ahem—I mean, the panel, but I was also asked to complete a Recruitment & Admissions Hiring Exercise (aka Thought Exercise), which consisted of Part 1: Mock Information Session with Per Scholas staff and Part 2: Engaging Prospective Learners. Both were to be presented before the panel during the Zoom meeting. For Part 1, the applicant is asked to use his creativity, a Recruitment Fact Sheet, and the Per Scholas website, in preparing a presentation (10 minutes max) on how he would describe Per Scholas to an audience who is not intimately familiar with the school. The purpose of this exercise is for the panel to gauge the applicant’s understanding of the Per Scholas model and his comfort with engaging a group. Part 2 involves preparing and discussing the plan of a one-page Thought Exercise, which is a one-week outline or schedule of outreach opportunities that the applicant would employ to build relationships with potential learners, utilizing community events and potential partner organizations. Before the Zoom session with the panel, I learned that the Newark campus suddenly had an opening for the Director of Recruitment and Admissions, which, like the position I was interviewing for, was posted on Indeed. I conveyed my interest in this management position while pointing out that my ample management background ideally qualified me for it. Oddly, my reveal hardly elicited a head nod from anyone. I suppressed a laugh when the managing Director and one of her colleagues solemnly stressed that one of their objectives was to maintain diversity on their staff—this reveal coming from two individuals whose colleagues—at least on the panel—are all African American. What a crock! As an black man, I’m all for diversity, but I find it disingenuous when an organization or a group engages in virtue signaling by putting on airs yet failing to meet the very standards it claims to exemplify. If your staff is truly diverse and inclusive, all its members shouldn’t be of one race. It was also strongly suggested that the school’s target audience among the unemployed and underemployed are “people of color.” I’m confident that I did very well on the interviews, including the one with the panel, smoothly delivering the aforementioned Thought Exercise, calmly answering questions while asking many questions myself. (Hey, it’s a two-way street, as I, too, needed my questions answered and my concerns addressed.) After the interview with the panel, the Managing Director assured me that she and her colleagues would reconvene later, arrive at a decision and that she would notify me by the following Thursday. I answered all their questions in a clear-thinking, satisfactory manner, did an excellent presentation, and forwarded brief thank-notes via email to each panel member, as I had done following the preceding interviews. Though the Managing Director displayed professionalism throughout the interview process, incredulously, she didn’t have the decency to notify me of her decision, which was obviously no. While I certainly did not expect her to call me in the case of a rejection, her sending an email or letter would have been the right thing to do.