I’m sharing this personal experience because professional integrity should be the bare minimum for a firm claiming “Ivy League” standards. To be clear, I never applied to this company—I was minding my own business when their leadership actively sought me out, only to waste my time with a disorganized and disrespectful process.

The Reality Check:

  1. The Bait: The Chief of Staff (CoS) reached out on LinkedIn, praising my background and personally inviting me to apply for the Family Success Manager role.

  2. The Switch: HR Manager Jenny Z. then treated me with condescension, demanding documents already sent, and claiming I was “not a fit” due to lack of education experience.

  3. The Evidence: The JD explicitly states education experience is “Preferred but Not Required” and lists alternative backgrounds (OR) that I possess. Jenny used a non-required preference as a sole reason for rejection.

• Verification: I’ve attached the JD with these clauses circled. You can verify this on InGenius Prep’s official LinkedIn Jobs page.

  1. The Ghosting: When I professionally flagged this contradiction, the CoS account (Matthew R.) went silent. No reply, just total ghosting.

A Question for Parents & Clients:

If this is how they treat candidates they personally recruited, does this lack of accountability extend to their student services once the contract is signed?

Message to Leadership:

Is InGenius Prep leadership aware that Matthew R.’s account is being used to recruit candidates, only to have them disrespected by Jenny Z.? As Matthew R. holds ultimate accountability for his account, does leadership care about recruitment integrity, or are they content to let staff dismantle the brand’s reputation?

A firm that markets ‘Ivy League standards’ should at least ensure its HR staff can read their own Job Descriptions before dismissing candidates hand-picked by their own leadership. Integrity must remain the cornerstone of educational consulting.

Note: Personal details and staff info are partially redacted for privacy and legal reasons. The evidence remains fully verifiable.