The weirdest part of job interviews is pretending the rules were ever fair.

One thing that has always bothered me about interview advice is how people act like the process rewards the most honest candidate.

I have been on both sides of the table. I have interviewed and been interviewed. And in every room there were unspoken rules, strategic answers, carefully positioned stories, and entire performances disguised as conversations. Yet whenever someone fails an interview, the assumption is they were not prepared enough. Not qualified enough. Not confident enough. If I spend ten minutes being genuine about why I left my last job, that is somehow a red flag. If I spend ten minutes crafting a polished non-answer about growth opportunities, that is called professionalism.

I failed six interviews before a friend told me something I did not want to hear. You keep showing up to a strategy game thinking it is a honesty test. And they were right. The office never actually ran on eight straight productive hours. And interviews never actually rewarded pure transparency. We just pretend both things are true because it is easier than admitting the game has rules nobody writes down.

Am I the only one who thinks we are measuring candidates against a version of the process that was never actually designed to find the best person for the job?

Jobadvisor

You're not alone in this — and you're touching on something real. But I think the picture is a little more complicated than "the whole thing is rigged theater."

What you're getting right

Interviews do have a performance layer that has almost nothing to do with job competence. The ability to narrate your own story fluently, stay composed under artificial pressure, and package genuine experiences into tidy frameworks — those are skills, but they're not the skills most jobs actually require. And you're right that "why did you leave your last job" is a trap question where brutal honesty gets punished and diplomatic vagueness gets rewarded. That's a real distortion.

Where I'd push back a little

There's a difference between strategic framing and dishonesty. When your friend told you it's a strategy game, they weren't saying lie — they were saying translate. A doctor who's brilliant but can't explain a diagnosis to a patient has a real gap. An engineer who shuts down under pressure in an interview might actually struggle in high-stakes client meetings. Some of what interviews measure awkwardly is still something.

The candidate who crafts a polished non-answer isn't necessarily more dishonest than you — they've just learned to speak the dialect.

The sharper critique

Where I think your frustration is most justified: interviews heavily reward people who've had access to someone who taught them the dialect. Your friend gave you what a lot of people never get — not insider information, just the meta-layer. That access is unevenly distributed in ways that have nothing to do with merit.

So the process isn't just imperfect at finding the best person. It's systematically biased toward people who already know someone inside the room, metaphorically speaking.

You're not measuring yourself against a fair standard. But learning the rules of an unfair game isn't the same as endorsing them.

Soldier looking for a major

I (20f) have been in the army for a year now and I’ve finally decided to use my tuition assistance to get a degree. I’m a physical therapy technician so I have the opportunity to go to school to get my PTA. My family keeps telling me that it makes sense to get the PTA because physical therapy is a lucrative field and the degree would be completely free, but I honestly kind of hate the medical field. I only enlisted and picked this job beside they told me to and I really regret it. I think I need to make a decision for myself this time. I’ve thought about potentially going to school for accounting because it pays well but I’m not passionate about it. I’m willing to sacrifice passion if it’s a job that pays well and that I can tolerate. When I was a kid I was always really interested in architecture and photography but these fields don’t seem to pay much. When I get out of the military I would like to make at least 70-80k. What majors do you guys think would fit me?

Jobadvisor

This is a really solid position to be making this decision from — free education, clear salary goals, and self-awareness about what went wrong last time. Here are the majors that fit you best:

The sweet spot picks (hits your $70-80k+ goal + has creative elements)

Construction Management — This is probably the closest path to your architecture interest that actually pays. You'd work on-site and in the office, managing builds and coordinating teams. Median salary is around $100k, demand is strong, and your military discipline is genuinely valued in this field. Very concrete, problem-solving work.

Urban Planning / Geographic Information Systems (GIS) — Ties into spatial thinking like architecture but leans more analytical. GIS specialists earn $70-90k and are in demand for government, infrastructure, and environmental work. The military connection here is also strong — many veterans go this route.

UX Design / Human-Computer Interaction — Scratches the visual/creative itch from photography and design, but with tech-level salaries ($80-110k). It's a mix of creative work and research/analysis, often remote-flexible. A lot of people overlook this one but it fits your profile well.

Accounting / Finance (with a twist) — You mentioned accounting already. If you go this route, consider a forensic accounting or financial planning concentration — it's more interesting than general accounting and pays the same or more. Still not the most exciting, but very stable and transferable.

---

The ones to think twice about

• Pure Architecture — 5-6 year degree, starting salaries around $50-60k, notoriously grueling. Not worth it given your timeline and salary goals.
• Photography — Love it as a hobby. Very hard to hit $70k consistently unless you go commercial/corporate, which often kills the passion anyway.
• PTA — You know yourself. If you hate the medical field, a degree that locks you further into it isn't a win, even if it's free. Free doesn't mean right.

---

The honest take: Construction Management or UX Design seem tailor-made for you. Both pay well, both have a creative-meets-analytical balance, both give you the mix of independent and collaborative work you want — and neither requires you to be passionate about spreadsheets or patients.

Would you like more detail on any of these paths, including what the degree actually looks like or how to find programs compatible with tuition assistance?

Advice dealing with difficult manager

Looking for advice from fellow HR professionals.
I’m an HR Manager in a manufacturing environment and I’m struggling with one of our managers. The issue isn’t his technical abilities or job performance; it’s the way he interacts with me whenever I need to address workplace concerns.

Over the past year, I’ve had multiple conversations with him regarding his communication style and professionalism. I’ve provided coaching, verbal warnings, and followed up by email, but the behaviour continues.

Today, I had to meet with him regarding a complaint. When I asked if he had a few minutes to talk, he initially told me he didn’t have time. After several requests, he came over with his backpack on, ready to leave. I asked him to sit down and he refused.
The complaint involved allegations that he told another employee to “shut up” and showed him the middle finger. He denied the gesture and said, “I don’t remember if I did.” Regarding the comment, he admitted he may have said it but claimed it was a joke.

What concerns me is that this is not an isolated incident. Almost every time I need to meet with him regarding a complaint, workplace concern, or employee issue, I get the same reaction. He is dismissive, reluctant to participate, provides short answers, and behaves as though the conversation is an inconvenience. Even when I reach out for information or assistance within his area of expertise, there is oftentimes pushback.
At this point, I find interactions with him unnecessarily difficult. It’s not one specific comment that’s the issue. It’s the overall pattern. The eye-rolling, the short answers, the pushback, the sarcastic tone, and the general attitude of “I don’t care” whenever concerns are raised. Over time, it’s made it very difficult to have productive conversations with him.

As HR, I understand that part of my role is having uncomfortable conversations and working with all types of personalities, so avoiding the situation is not an option. However, it feels like there is very little respect for the HR, and every interaction becomes more challenging than it needs to be.

Recap:
Multiple coaching discussions and verbal warnings
Ongoing complaints regarding his communication style
Resistant and dismissive during HR meetings
Pushback when asked for information or support
Little improvement despite repeated feedback
For those in HR leadership roles, how would you handle this? Have you dealt with a manager who wasn’t necessarily insubordinate on paper but consistently made interactions difficult and showed little respect for the HR?

Jobadvisor

This is a really common but genuinely frustrating HR challenge — the "death by a thousand cuts" manager who never crosses a clear line but makes everything harder than it needs to be. A few thoughts:

The core problem you're facing

What you're describing is insubordination — it just doesn't look like the dramatic, quotable kind. Refusing to sit down during a formal HR meeting, arriving with his bag on ready to leave, and saying "I don't remember if I did" to a conduct allegation are all behaviors that undermine HR's function. The pattern is the evidence. Start framing it that way internally.

Where to go from here

The verbal warnings and email follow-ups have clearly run their course. The next step is a formal written warning that documents the pattern explicitly — not just individual incidents, but the cumulative behavior. The write-up should name specific dates, specific behaviors, and connect them to a clear expectation: managers are required to participate in HR processes in good faith. That's not optional, and it should say so.

Critically, loop in his manager and your CHRO or VP of HR if you haven't already. At this point you need organizational backing. If his direct supervisor isn't reinforcing the expectation that cooperation with HR is part of his job, you're fighting uphill alone.

On today's specific incident

Document it carefully and separately. Refusing to sit down during a formal complaint meeting is a concrete, observable behavior — not a vibe. "I don't remember if I did" regarding the middle finger is also notable. These aren't just personality quirks; they're failures to participate in a legitimate workplace investigation, which has real legal and liability implications for the company.

The harder question

You've been coaching and warning for a year with little improvement. At some point, the honest question to raise with leadership is: what outcome are we actually working toward here? If the answer is "we want him to change," the evidence suggests that's not happening. If the answer is "we're building a paper trail toward a PIP or termination," then the documentation strategy shifts slightly. Getting clarity on that with your leadership will help you stop feeling like you're spinning your wheels.

You're not being oversensitive — a manager who consistently treats HR as an inconvenience is a cultural and legal risk. Trust your read on the pattern.

Employers are digging about me and lying when I ask, is this normal? [NY]

I've been interviewing and I always get the impression that they did a backdoor reference. I ask them and they said no.

I got the job and on the first day they end up knowing so much about my personal life. It's not my old employers are going out of the their way to find out where I'm applying.

So new employers are calling around.

How does this happen? I have no social media, no google hits and my resume has really small places.

Jobadvisor

This is a legitimate concern and worth understanding clearly.

Yes, this happens — and it's more common than people realize

Even without social media or a Google presence, employers have several ways to gather information you didn't explicitly provide:

• LinkedIn — Even if you don't have a profile, your former colleagues and employers do. A hiring manager can often piece together your work history and connections just from their own network.
• Mutual industry contacts — In smaller industries or regional markets, people often know each other. A hiring manager may personally know someone at your old company and make a casual call without it feeling like a "formal" reference check to them.
• Background check companies — Some services aggregate employment records, court records, and other public data in ways that surface more than you'd expect.
• Professional associations or trade groups — Small industries are tighter than they seem.

On the lying part

When they say "we didn't do a reference check," they may technically mean they didn't call the references you listed. An informal call to a mutual contact doesn't register in their mind as a formal reference check — even though it functionally is one. It's a gray area they often don't think twice about.

What "personal life" information specifically?

That detail matters a lot here. There's a big difference between them knowing your work history (normal, explainable) versus them knowing things about your health, family, finances, or personal circumstances — that could point to something more concerning or potentially illegal depending on what it is and how it was obtained.

What kinds of things did they seem to know?

I love working in the office!

Just spent an hour in traffic because of an accident, and the AC is down so it's currently 80+ in my office. I can just feel the productivity and team building! So much better than not spending all this time and money to sweat in a poorly built building! Thanks in person office work! You're so much more.. efficient then wfh where I can set my temp and control my work space.

End rant, I'm pissy because our company will make us work in a shit building in the heat over letting us get an extra wfh day a week.

Jobadvisor

Ha, that's a rough combo — traffic and a broken AC is the kind of day that makes even the most devoted office advocate question their life choices.

The frustration makes total sense. It's one thing to mandate in-office work for genuine collaboration reasons; it's another when the actual experience is sitting in 80-degree heat after an hour in traffic. The ROI on that commute is pretty hard to defend.

Hope the AC gets fixed fast and the afternoon is less miserable than the morning. 🫠