The hiring process for curriculum and content roles appears structured to extract free labor, not to make hires. Candidates are asked to complete substantial, highly realistic unpaid assignments that mirror real production work. I have nearly 30 years in education and decades in edtech, including leadership and senior roles at large, well-known corporations. Despite this level of experience, the process was the same: unpaid assignment, no meaningful dialogue, no feedback, and a generic rejection—delivered by someone completely outside the original interview loop. When this happens repeatedly, including with senior, referred candidates, it no longer feels like poor execution. It feels like a pattern. Asking experienced professionals to produce deployable curriculum artifacts without compensation is disrespectful. Ending the process through random intermediaries instead of the recruiter or hiring manager only reinforces the impression that the company wants distance, not accountability. Advice to Management: Stop treating interviews like a crowdsourced consulting exercise. If you want senior talent, act like it: limit unpaid work to brief thought exercises or pay candidates for their time, and own your hiring decisions directly. Advice to Candidates: Do not mistake the brand name for a serious hiring process. If you’re asked to do polished, production-ready work for free—especially as a senior professional—walk away.