I interviewed for the Mergers & Acquisitions Analyst role and walked away genuinely shocked at how unprofessional and demeaning the experience was. The interviewer (who was the founder/partner of the firm in the Denver, CO location) spent most of the time interrogating my transcript, nitpicking a few B grades, and openly questioning my maturity and fit, while not extending even the most basic professional courtesy on his side. By the end, it was crystal clear that this is not a place I’d want to work, regardless of title or “deal experience.” The interview was a 30-minute Google Meet in which the interviewer joined the call from his car, using what sounded like the car microphone. Camera off the entire time. No attempt to find a quiet office, no sense that he’d blocked time to be fully present despite the fact that the interview had been scheduled at least a week in advance. For a firm that claims to be all about excellence and high standards, having a candidate’s first interaction be a car call with no video sends a pretty loud message about how they actually value people’s time. If that’s how they treat potentially valuable additions to their team, I can’t imagine how they would treat someone on the other end of the table, such as clientele. From the very beginning, the tone felt less like “let’s get to know you” and more like an interrogation. Here are some of the specific moments that stood out: He focused heavily on a few B grades on my transcript and repeatedly pushed on “why,” as if it was some deep character flaw, not normal variation in university. I understand the desire to hire the best and brightest students, but we are not automatons; we are human beings who have lives outside of lecture halls and have personal responsibilities to deal with that may impede our academic “excellence.” Failing to recognize these human aspects is a deep character fault that tarnishes the reputation of a firm that hails itself as “data-driven” and excelling in due diligence. At one point he said there was a “misalignment” between me and what they’re looking for (which is fine) and told me I wasn’t “mature enough” for the role. In what circumstances are ad hominem attacks constructive feedback? Rhetoric 101 teaches you that they are the lowest form of logical fallacy, so it makes no sense to use them in a professional setting. When I tried to stand up for myself by making the analogy that “past returns are not indicative of future returns,” and that it wasn’t fair to assume I’m the same person today as when I got those grades, he didn’t really engage with the point and just brushed it off by shifting into a weird power play. He reminded me that I’m also interviewing him and then asked if I’d looked him up on LinkedIn and read the articles he reposted. Of course I looked him up. Before every interview I do my best to learn as much as I can about the company, the people, the culture, and so on. I even had a lovely conversation with an analyst at the firm via LinkedIn. Unbeknownst to me, however, this interview would be more about him rather than them. The tone here felt more like a trap than a genuine conversation, especially after 20 minutes of grilling. By this point I was so shaken by the experience and in such disbelief that I just left the call. The whole vibe was essentially, “I’m going to pick apart your flaws and then check whether you’ve studied my personal brand closely enough.” What really stood out was the asymmetry: On my side, I made sure to show up on time, prepare, research the firm and the role, and even reach out to someone in that same position. I was ready to talk about my experience, ask thoughtful questions, and show a genuine interest and passion for the industry. On his side, however, there couldn’t have been a greater juxtaposition. He couldn’t be bothered to be in a quiet, professional environment. No camera, car audio, very little warmth or curiosity about me as a person. Heavy emphasis on critiquing my past rather than understanding my trajectory, mindset, or actual skills. If you’re going to hold candidates to extremely high standards on grades, “maturity,” and even whether they’ve read your LinkedIn articles, the bare minimum is to show the same level of professionalism in how you show up. Without getting into exact numbers, the role appears to be paid like a typical entry-level analyst (~$70k range) but described and framed like a job with much higher expectations and workload (full-on QoE, intense M&A support, long hours, high pressure). That tradeoff might make sense if the culture felt developmental and respectful, or if the firm carried the same level of brand-name recognition that can be found at places like Goldman Sachs, but based on this interaction, it did not.