This interview was absolutely ludicrous. An HR representative reached out to me for a full time position as a writer/editor with the school district, and the opportunity seemed excellent. I have a background in education with multiple years of university-level teaching and professional technical writing under my belt, as well as an advanced degree in English. Given my professional experience, I felt qualified to begin the interview process with Challenger School—little did I know how strange and (frankly inappropriate) the interview would be. The first interview (a 30 minute phone chat) went swimmingly, mostly discussing my personal background and resume. From there, I was sent an approximately 1 hour assessment that consisted of timed SAT-esque questions and four sections of personality/potential work scenario free answers. While not entirely rocket science, the length of the test felt excessive and unrelated to the demands of the actual position. My performance on this test landed me a second, in-person interview at the Challenger School building. Despite being interviewed by the same HR rep who had initially reached out to me and conducted the first interview, the first twenty minutes was nearly identical to our phone conversation, discussing my resume. He then shifted to off-resume questions, which took a turn for the strange: he proceeded to ask me politically-focused questions, the first being "what is something you feel the government is doing well?" This seemed somewhat out of left field, given the current politically-charged climate. In all honesty, I struggled to give an answer that remained neutral. After all, didn't his mother ever teach him questions regarding politics and religion aren't exactly proper bed-side manner? Despite my discomfort, I answered slowly with what I felt was the most non-partisan reply. The second question was just as strange. "How do you feel about seatbelt laws?" Well, being a younger person, I've never known life without them. Of course, they save lives and encourage personal responsibility. He then responded with "So if seatbelt laws should be enforced, then tobacco should be completely outlawed, particularly given there are more deaths from tobacco-related illnesses than car accidents?" Again, encouraging me to give another somewhat politically-charged answer, as well as trying to catch me in a logical fallacy as a means of testing my intelligence. The whole scenario felt bizarre, baiting, and nonsensical. I gave yet another slow and halted answer, unwilling to play the game. The rest of the interview followed in a similarly puzzling manner, before resting on a few easy 'get to know you'-style questions. By the time I walked out, I knew my refusal to land on a politically-charged statement had cost me the opportunity, but I didn't mind—if the office I was going to work in would be full of similar-minded people, who are opinionated and self-righteous to the point of ad nauseum, I didn't want in.