Jovanay Carter Back to home
Case study 01 · The Dev Difference

Turning a mock interview into feedback a student can actually use

How I designed, shipped, and iterated an AI assessment that 2,000+ college students used to practice interviews, sold through universities and adopted through student clubs.

My roleFounder and product lead
TeamCTO + [#] engineers, [others]
Timeline[Start] to present
Users2,000+ students · [#] universities
Plays on YouTube
Me walking through the platform: the admin view a career program sees, with licenses, interviews practiced and scores.

01The problem

Students practiced interviews and got a vague verdict, or nothing at all. Career centers could not give every student a live mock interview. Employers could not see skill signals early enough.

[Your sharpest one-sentence version of the problem, with a number if you have one.]

02Discovery: three customers, one product

  • Buyer, the university: needs outcomes to report and a tool that scales past staff capacity.
  • Practitioner, career programs and student clubs: need something students will actually use, and a view of who needs help.
  • Learner, the student: needs honest, specific feedback and a clear next thing to practice.

Same shape as K–12: district buys, teacher runs it, student takes it. [What you learned from [#] discovery conversations, and the one insight that changed the roadmap.]

I also host How I Got This Job, a podcast where I talk with students, scholars and career services leaders, the same people this product serves. [One line on Dr. Ansley Booker's career services role.] [Episode link]

03Designing the assessment

What exactly are we assessing?

[Decision, and why.]

What does a strong response look like?

[Decision, and why.]

How does the rubric turn performance into a useful result?

[Decision, and why.]

How do we keep results trustworthy and hard to game?

[Decision, and why.]

How does feedback help someone improve, not just score?

[Decision, and why.]

04Where AI belongs in the workflow

1The system delivers a custom question set.
2The student answers out loud with Buddy.
3AI scores against the rubric and cites evidence.
4AI and checks apply integrity and quality thresholds.
5A coach or program reviews and decides.

[How you validated AI scoring before broad release: agreement with human graders on [#] responses, the threshold you set, and what happened below it.]

05Technical decisions

[The API and backend choices you owned with engineering: how assessments, responses, and scores are stored and served; integrations; one tradeoff you made and why.]

06Launch and distribution

Partnered with universities for access, then went straight to student clubs to drive real use. [How the first launch went and what you changed in the first 30 days.]

07Measuring it, then changing course

2,000+students assessed
[#]score gain on a repeat attempt
[#]students reporting a job or internship
[#]human and AI score agreement

What the data told me

[One insight that surprised you.]

What I changed

[The pivot or iteration, and the result after.]

08What this means for K–12

Different setting, same problem: help a teacher see how a student is thinking, and what to teach tomorrow.

← Back to homeNext: Product strategy for Amplify →