The initial screening went well—it was cordial, structured, and I felt I aligned with what they were looking for. I was told not to over-prepare, particularly in terms of product knowledge, because, as they said, "you'll learn that once you're in." They emphasized willingness to learn over experience, which made sense. But during the second interview, I encountered a very different set of expectations. I was asked to justify one product over another, to argue for choices in detail, as though I had already undergone the training I was told would come later. That contradiction is worth noting—not just for what it says about the process, but for what it says about how institutions sometimes function. Despite performing well within the frame I was given, I was told I lacked preparation and didn't insist enough on the sale. That wasn’t accurate—I did insist. But sometimes, the outcome is predetermined. I later learned from someone close to the company that they often hire based on internal recommendations, and the interviews can serve more as a procedural formality than a genuine evaluation. That might seem disheartening, but it’s also informative. Institutions are complex, often opaque, and they don't always operate as meritocratically as we imagine. The experience was frustrating—but I came away more aware, and more prepared for the reality of how these systems often work.