[paulcole]

> being the best candidate that applied.

Not to burst your bubble but there’s a near 100% chance you’re wrong about this.

Remember that the goal of hiring isn’t to hire the best person who applies.

The goal is to hire somebody who can do the job at the wage that’s offered. The best person might reject an offer or not even get one in the first place.

[MattPalmer1086]

The goal is definitely to try to hire the best person who applies. A company might not succeed in that and take the second best, or even worse.

If you get a job offer it means that you were the best candidate that was available to the company. I'm cool with that personally, I don't agonise that some rock star may have rejected the role.

[paulcole]

Well to be fair, there’s no objective measure of “best” which makes this debate pretty pointless.

But also, why would I want to hire the best? Wouldn’t that mean that I can’t make a decision until I’ve seen all the candidates? Why don’t I simply look for the first that meets the requirements of the job?

> If you get a job offer it means that you were the best candidate that was available to the company

Again, I’ll disagree here. If you get an offer from the company it means that you got an offer from the company. You can tell yourself it was because you were the best available, but probably not true.

[MattPalmer1086]

You try to hire the best candidate you see. At least that's what I've always tried to do on the other side of the interviewing table...