Pros
literally none. negative 4 stars.
Cons
I want to share a cautionary tale for anyone considering working as an instructor for The Princeton Review. What they call “training” is actually a dishonest and predatory evaluation process that wastes time, money, and talent—while deliberately avoiding written accountability. I was hired, onboarded, paid, and spent 20 hours in training before suddenly being told my employment was terminated. Why? Because I didn’t pass their one-day hidden elimination round—an evaluation where the stakes and criteria were purposefully misleading or outright lies. At no point in the written onboarding materials was it made clear that: • Training wasn’t actually training. It was a covert evaluation where a single bad Teachback session meant getting cut. • There was a secret cutoff score. They evaluated trainees but never disclosed the score required to stay employed. • This was a one-strike system. No opportunity to improve, no actionable feedback—just an immediate dismissal. I knew I was being assessed, but I was intentionally misled about what that meant. And when I pushed back, I was gaslit with corporate jargon—told about “meticulous preparation” and “content rubrics” that were never once provided in writing. They retroactively justified their lack of transparency instead of owning up to it. And the worst part? They paid me for 20 hours of work and got NOTHING out of it. I never taught a single student. This means they aren’t even benefiting from their own bad system—it’s just corporate dysfunction, plain and simple. If The Princeton Review actually cared about hiring strong instructors, they would: 1. Clearly state in writing that “training” is actually an evaluation and disclose the minimum passing score. 2. Provide a fair opportunity to improve instead of cutting people off without warning. 3. Hold their trainers accountable for clear, written expectations rather than relying on vague corporate-speak. A company that sells education and test prep should not be deceiving its own employees with unclear, manipulative hiring practices. I’m sharing this so others don’t waste their time on a company that values gatekeeping over genuine training. The Princeton Review needs to do better. And if you’re considering applying—don’t.