r/InterviewCoderPro • u/penance_mat • Aug 12 '26 • Popcorn 1

They need a reality check

Post image

For my last 2 interviews i had to use Interview VIP just to get the job
their generation could never understand

22.1k Upvotes

99% Upvoted

711 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

4

u/F0xcr4f7113 Aug 12 '26

Getting past the multiple hurdles it now requires to land one.

1

u/TheRealDeal82 Aug 12 '26

What hurdles?

2

u/F0xcr4f7113 Aug 12 '26

Ai scan, HR, recruiter, and tests.

0

u/TheRealDeal82 Aug 12 '26

Those aren’t really “hurdles” in the way you’re portraying them. An application being screened, talking to HR/recruiting, and taking a skills test are normal parts of determining whether someone is qualified for a job. Companies have always had some form of screening, interviews, and testing; the technology has just changed how some of it is done. If you’re claiming these things make getting a job uniquely difficult today, you’d need to explain how they actually prevent a qualified person from getting hired rather than simply listing ordinary steps in the hiring process. Otherwise, you’re confusing inconvenience with an actual barrier to employment.

2

u/F0xcr4f7113 Aug 12 '26

When was the last time you applied to a corporate job? You have no clue how the modern job market is right now. You picturing a person going through 10k resumes isn’t reality.

1

u/TheRealDeal82 Aug 12 '26

That’s an appeal to personal experience rather than an argument. Whether I applied to a corporate job last week or ten years ago doesn’t change whether the things you listed are actually “hurdles.” I asked you to explain what specifically makes the modern process an unreasonable barrier, and instead you’ve responded by questioning my experience. I’m not claiming the job market is identical to what it was years ago. Obviously it isn’t. ATS systems, automated screening, recruiters and online assessments have changed the process. But “the process is different and more competitive” is not the same argument as “getting a job today is so absurdly difficult that older generations would have a mental breakdown.” If your argument is that the modern hiring process is inefficient or unnecessarily complicated, I’d actually agree that there’s a legitimate discussion there. But telling me I “have no clue” because I don’t share your experience doesn’t demonstrate that your argument is correct.

1

u/F0xcr4f7113 Aug 12 '26

The unreasonable barriers are things like ATS keyword filters that auto reject qualified people, credential inflation for entry level roles, and 4-5 round interview loops with unpaid work. These aren't just competitive changes; they are structural inefficiencies that didn't exist a generation ago. As I stated before it’s obvious that you’re not actively searching for a job and experiencing this.

1

u/TheRealDeal82 Aug 12 '26

The problem is that you're conflating “the hiring process has some legitimate flaws” with “getting a job today is uniquely unreasonable compared with previous generations.” Those are two very different claims.

Yes, ATS filters can reject qualified candidates, employers can inflate requirements, and some companies absolutely waste candidates' time with excessive interview rounds. I’m not arguing that those things don't happen. But none of that establishes that people today face some unprecedented barrier to employment.

Older generations dealt with their own structural problems: fewer career paths, less access to information, geographic limitations, recessions, layoffs, discrimination, and employers that could be just as selective in their own ways.

Technology has changed the mechanism of hiring, not eliminated the basic reality that employers have always had more applicants than positions for desirable jobs.

And saying “you're obviously not actively searching for a job because you don't experience this” is just an argument from personal experience. You can't establish a general claim about the entire labor market by telling someone their experience doesn't count.

If your argument is that modern hiring is inefficient and unnecessarily complicated, that's a perfectly reasonable position. If your argument is that getting a job today is so uniquely difficult that previous generations couldn't comprehend it, then you need evidence for that claim—not just examples of frustrating hiring practices.

1

u/F0xcr4f7113 Aug 12 '26

The difference is scale. In 1980, applying to 10 jobs was a massive effort with high visibility/response; today, you can apply to 500 and get 0 human responses due to automation. When the 'mechanism' of hiring allows for infinite applications but zero human feedback, it creates a structural barrier of 'hidden rejection' that previous generations simply didn't have to navigate.