The interview process was intense, time-consuming, and ultimately frustrating. Before speaking with anyone, I was required to complete a 75-minute case study. Only after submitting that was I invited to interview. For an EA role, this is a significant upfront investment, especially without clarity on how the case study is evaluated or how much weight it carries. The interviews themselves were strong, substantive, and engaging. Conversations focused on judgment, real-world scenarios, and collaboration, and I consistently left interviews feeling they went very well. Despite this, the process ended abruptly with a rejection and no feedback, making the decision difficult to reconcile with the depth of the interviews and the initial case-study requirement. What stood out most was a clear disconnect between the firm’s stated preference for elite academic backgrounds and the actual dynamics within the EA function. While academic pedigree appears to be emphasized in screening, many individuals currently in the role do not reflect that standard, and there was a noticeable discomfort when interacting with candidates who came from more prestigious academic backgrounds. This created an unspoken but palpable tension during the process. The people I met were professional, and the firm clearly holds itself out as high-caliber. However, the lack of transparency, combined with mixed cultural signals and apparent insecurity around credentials, made the experience disappointing. Overall, a firm that demands a great deal from candidates but offers limited clarity, feedback, or consistency in return.