[sxg]

Take a look at how things worked before (and still do): employers decide who get jobs based on a combination of personal biases, nepotism, and ulterior motives while applicants present distorted versions of themselves and network/pull strings to put the odds in their favor. That seems more problematic.

[1attice]

You would be surprised at the process in other industries. What you are describing is the tech job market specifically.

Other fields have their own problems, including credentialism and ballooning concomitant student loans, but do, by strict convention, not hire based on vibes or pulled strings. Often to their partial detriment, as the cure -- ie, strict oversight of hiring that also forces the hiring manager to ignore important implicit signals -- is alive and well in medicine, law, civil engineering, education, and the trades. Notable exceptions include entertainment, sales, real estate, and software engineering.

By optimizing for vibes, the tech industry gains "Spidey senses" in the hiring loop but pays for it in impartiality.

IMO this precipitated the DEI movement's advent, as it was seen as a way of remediating the drawbacks while preserving the information channel.

Without it, expect either homophily, and, eventually, a harsh and remedial credentialism.

[sxg]

I'm a physician and have recently been on both sides of the hiring process for new physicians and residents at a few different institutions. It's absolutely not meritocratic--you'd be shocked at how strong a role connections and pedigree play. The hard requirements are just table stakes, but the selection process from there is completely subjective and susceptible to all kinds of problematic biases. Generally people don't want to rock the boat and discuss this stuff openly, but it's absolutely a problem that needs to be pointed out.

[1attice]

Weird. I used to be an academic and hiring was wildly formal. Sorry to hear medicine fell to vibes.