• The company publicly advertises internships and working-student opportunities across disciplines, including roles open to enrolled students and recent graduates.
• The Exploration Company shows recurring hiring volume through large job-board footprints and a steady stream of technical openings, which suggests ongoing team growth rather than one-off junior intake.
• The company still mixes “early-career looking” labels with role requirements that can be more experienced in practice (for example, some postings categorized as junior requiring multiple years in niche hardware domains), which makes true entry-level access uneven.

‍

• The company has multiple public candidate accounts describing disorganized interviews, mismatched interview scope (culture vs technical), and interviewers appearing unprepared.
• The Exploration Company is associated with time-heavy case studies or take-home style steps in some candidate reports, plus follow-ups describing generic rejections and lack of feedback after significant effort.
• The company does still run a recognizable sequence in some cases (HR screen plus panel/case), but consistency and closure look unreliable from publicly available interview feedback.

‍

• The company explicitly sells internships on “hands-on experience” on real missions and includes “mentorship from experienced aerospace engineers and leaders” in internship-style postings.
• The Exploration Company frequently describes cross-functional collaboration (systems, avionics, AIT, design) in technical roles, which can be a strong learning environment when supported well.
• The company does not publish concrete early-career support mechanics (structured onboarding, buddy systems, training time, review cadence) in a way that can be verified, so learning support can’t score higher.

‍

• The company does not consistently publish salary ranges in publicly visible listings, which caps confidence on pay fairness for graduates.
• The Exploration Company does signal practical stability supports like relocation and visa/work-permit help, which matters for early-career mobility in aerospace hubs.
• The company has too little reliable, role-by-role pay data in public sources (and too small a sample in salary aggregators) to judge whether offers are market-competitive.

‍

• The company publicly promotes internal mobility as a way to grow careers, but this is not backed by published examples of junior promotions, time-to-promotion, or early-career retention metrics.
• The Exploration Company’s repeated internship-style hiring suggests some level of early-career pipeline activity, but conversion rates from internship to full-time are not shared publicly.
• The company’s LinkedIn “Life” presence points to ongoing hiring scale, but public outcome signals for juniors (progression, manager quality, retention over 12–24 months) are missing, limiting the score.

‍