Interview Process Felt More Like a Screening for Compliance Than for Skill Pros: The initial technical discussion with a scientist was professional and focused on relevant experience. It reflected genuine technical interest and expertise. Cons: The subsequent interview stage, focused on administrative topics, felt misaligned with expectations for a research fellowship. The conversation centered almost exclusively on compensation, with little discussion of the candidate’s skills or research direction. A compensation offer roughly 30% below market average was presented early, suggesting the process prioritized cost control over technical capability. When I inquired about how responsibilities might scale with higher compensation, the topic was closed without discussion. The overall tone of the process left the impression that the company was seeking candidates who could be directed narrowly, rather than independent collaborators. Additionally, follow-up communication promised by a specific date did not occur. The stated ambition of an “AI Fellowship” program seems to exceed its current resources — mentorship availability and access to compute were unclear. Advice to Management: A more balanced, two-way interview would attract stronger research talent. Focusing on technical alignment, transparent expectations, and professional follow-through would strengthen the credibility of the fellowship and improve the candidate experience.