Interviewed for a senior-level AI engineering position. The process began with a written assessment covering Python, LLMs, and prompt engineering. Unfortunately, the questions were extremely basic and appeared more suitable for an entry-level candidate than for someone applying to a senior role. The assessment did not evaluate architecture, system design, production experience, problem-solving, or any of the responsibilities typically associated with senior engineering positions. The technical interview that followed was similarly disappointing. Many of the questions focused on elementary textbook concepts rather than real-world engineering challenges. For example, one of the questions asked was, "What is the difference between an integer and a float?" While this may be appropriate for screening junior candidates, it felt disconnected from the expectations of a senior-level role. What was most frustrating was the apparent emphasis on academic background over demonstrated experience. Despite having professional software engineering experience and a portfolio of production work, much of the discussion seemed focused on educational credentials rather than technical accomplishments, project ownership, architectural decisions, or problem-solving ability. Overall, the interview process gave the impression that the company lacks a clear framework for evaluating senior engineering talent. Candidates applying for experienced or founding-level positions should expect questions that are significantly more basic than the role description would suggest.