After exchanging pleasantries, the recruiter asked me two questions. Then, they fast-talked their way through the job description and the workflow. This behavior surprised me, especially since the recruiter mentioned having teaching experience, which one would assume comes with an understanding that rapid speech leads to poor understanding. It seemed to me the recruiter had already decided they would not move my application forward after the two initial questions. So, they wanted to save time, hence their rapid speech. I found this behavior unprofessional, disrespectful, and representative of how the Princeton Review operates. I feel they don't see instructors as human beings worthy of respect but as disposable tools. You can see this mindset in how some of their practices appear deceptive and exploitative. For example, the job description doesn't mention that instructors would be paid an hourly rate during training that is much lower than the one advertised. They disclose this information during the interview stage after you have invested significant time preparing for the exam and the phone interview. Furthermore, they have this bidding process in which instructors submit a bid after getting the schedule and hope they are selected. It looks like a process that pits people against each other to fight for scraps. This process shows the Princeton Review is not interested in providing instructors with stability or security. They want to extract as much value as possible from the instructors without reciprocating their efforts.

Rigorous but fair, one interview, followed by a teaching audition. Teaching audition occurs over two days responsible for doing a teachback incorporating feedback on first day and then re-presenting on the second day in order to be certified