[nottathrowaway3]

> then it's in the best interest of ... the applicant that they not be hired

This kind of wordplay makes sense from HR's perspective. Ex: it "wouldn't be a fit for you anyway", there are "other jobs where you'll be able to grow more", etc.

The best interest of the applicant is always to get an offer (or stop the interview process of their own volition). Not get rejected by a screen and get zero feedback. Obviously this costs more for the business, which is why they have incentive to use that kind of reasoning.

Even if you shouldn't take it, competing offers can be used in various negotiations. And getting practice at interviewing is how you get better at interviewing (and at your actual job).

[JohnFen]

I don't think it's fair to call my comment wordplay. The only point that I was making is that if an applicant is unable to perform adequately in the job, it's in the best interest of the applicant and the employer that they not be in the job.

I don't think this is a controversial statement. If such an applicant gets the job, both the applicant and the employer will be unhappy and someone will either have to quit or be fired, which also sucks for all concerned.

[nottathrowaway3]

It evokes a larger brand of similar wordplay which is basically the professional equivalent of "it's not you, it's me". The reason people don't like it is that it essentially tries to trick applicants into misunderstanding their economic interest, rather than just admit they're rejecting you because you're bad.

> If such an applicant gets a job...

Getting the job offer would not cause any of those problems. By getting it you would build valuable interviewing experience. Taking it is the thing that's not in your interest. That's all I'm trying to say.