The "Hidden Barriers" in Recruitment: Why Are You Rejected Despite Passing Five Rounds of Interviews Due to Your First Degree?
Hello everyone, I'm your financial journalist and friend economist. Today, we're going to discuss a news story that can be quite disheartening for many job seekers.
The protagonist of this story is Xiao Miao, whose experience is all too familiar to many of us: he didn't perform well in the college entrance exam and ended up attending a junior college. Unwilling to settle for that, he spent two years upgrading from a junior college to a bachelor's degree through a formal program. Still not satisfied, he went on to earn a master's degree from a "Double First-Class" university. It took him a full eight years of hard work to advance from a junior college to a master's degree.
This spring, he applied for a position at a leading internet company. The job advertisement stated: "Bachelor's degree or above; exceptional candidates may be considered for exceptions." Xiao Miao thought to himself, "I have a master's degree and have passed five rounds of interviews—shouldn't that qualify me as an 'exception'?"
What happened next? He resigned, hired an agent to help with the application, and even found a place to live. Just as the hiring process was about to be finalized, the HR told him, "The headquarters requires a formal, four-year bachelor's degree through a traditional university program. Since you started with a junior college degree, you can't proceed with the application."
At that moment, the promise of "exceptional candidates may be considered" turned out to be nothing more than decorative text on the recruitment poster—beautiful, but useless.
The reason this incident has caused such a stir is not so much because it's unfair (although it is frustrating), but because it exposes a significant logical flaw in modern recruitment practices: companies often hide the most stringent requirements at the very end of the process.
Let's break down the logic, the costs, and the human aspects behind this issue from four perspectives.
---
01 The Double Standards in the Process: Interviews Assess Ability, Approval Checks Background
Core Question: Why were you rejected even though you passed the first five rounds of interviews?
It's like going to a restaurant: the waiter leads you to your seat, you place your order, the chef starts cooking, and the food is served. Then, suddenly, the owner rushes in and says, "Sorry, we only serve customers in suits; you're wearing a T-shirt—please leave."
Is that reasonable? Obviously not.
In economics and management, recruitment is a screening mechanism. The interview stage is typically used to assess a candidate's competence—communication skills, understanding of the job, and past experience—these are soft, complex criteria that require multiple rounds of interviews to verify. The approval stage, on the other hand, is usually about compliance and meeting strict requirements, such as age, gender, and educational background—these are hard, simple criteria that should have been filtered out during the resume screening phase.
In Xiao Miao's case, the company made a serious mistake in the process. The first five interviewers (from the business department) deemed him competent and suitable for the position, so he progressed. However, the HR department or the headquarters later introduced a requirement that was never clearly communicated beforehand: the candidate must have a formal, four-year bachelor's degree.
This creates a conflict between two different sets of standards:
- The business department used the standard of competence, and he met it.
- The HR department used a different standard based on educational background, and he didn't.
When this hidden requirement emerged at the last moment, all his previous efforts became a costly misunderstanding. The company turned the recruitment process into a test of risk for the candidate, rather than a mutual selection process. This approach not only wastes the candidate's time but also undermines the professionalism of the recruitment process.
---
02 The Ambiguity of "Exceptional": Who Defines What Makes You "Excellent"?
Core Question: Does the phrase "exceptional candidates may be considered" have any legal or moral authority?
This is the most infuriating part of the whole story. It sounds humane, like an open door, but in reality, it might just be a closed one.
In business logic, vague promises are essentially no promises at all. If there were clear criteria for what constitutes "excellence"—for example, having a PMP certification, five years of experience in a key project at a large company, or a GPA in the top 10%—Xiao Miao could have known whether he met those criteria and whether he was eligible for an exception. But since there were no clear standards, the company had the final say in defining what "excellence" meant.
Xiao Miao had a master's degree from a prestigious university and passed five rounds of rigorous interviews. By most standards, that should have been enough. Yet, he was still rejected. This shows that, within the company's internal logic, the first degree held more weight than his master's degree or his interview performance.
It's like buying a lottery ticket where the rules state the winning numbers are six digits, but if you match five, the owner says, "Oh, you need to be a VIP to win." In this case, the "exception" was based on an unspecified, internal rule.
---
03 The Traps of Labels: Why Is the "First Degree" Such a Useful Criterion?
Core Question: Why do companies use the first degree as a barrier? What's the economic motivation behind this?
First, let's clarify: the term "first degree" is not an official term used by the Ministry of Education. The ministry emphasizes the "highest degree" or the most recent degree obtained. However, in the job market, it has become a common practice for many companies to use it as a criterion.
The reason is that labels are convenient and safe for companies:
1. Reduced decision-making costs: HR and managers need to quickly screen thousands of resumes. Using the first degree as a distinction helps them quickly sort candidates.
- A formal bachelor's degree vs. an upgraded one from a junior college: the former is seen as more legitimate.
- A degree from a prestigious university vs. an ordinary one: the former is considered more elite.
With this label, companies can categorize candidates without delving into their individual efforts and abilities.
2. Avoiding responsibility: If a company were to explicitly state, "Only 985 universities are eligible," it could face public backlash and legal risks. By using the term "exceptional candidates," they can shift the blame to higher-ups or system limitations.
3. Internalized societal biases: Many people subconsciously believe that grades from the age of 18 are more indicative of talent than those from later in life. This bias is used as a pretext for more efficient screening, but it's actually a form of systemic discrimination against those who have overcome challenges.
Xiao Miao's eight-year journey of education represents years of investment in time and effort. His abilities—continuous learning, resilience, and self-improvement—are valuable qualities. But labels ignore these and focus only on the starting point.
---
04 The Costs and Responsibilities: Who Bears the Price of Hidden Barriers?
Core Question: When companies hide requirements at the end of the process, who pays the price?
This is a classic example of an externalization of costs. The company incurs almost no real cost; it simply needs to reject the application or send a cold email. However, the candidate suffers significant, irreversible losses:
- Time cost: Five rounds of interviews and preparation time.
- Opportunity cost: He resigned from a good job, missed other job opportunities, and the prime time for hiring.
- Psychological cost: Repeated disappointments, doubts about his own worth, and a breakdown in trust in the job market.
This is the harm caused by information asymmetry. In an ideal market, information should be transparent. The job advertisement should clearly state what you can expect. If it promises one thing but delivers another, that's fraud.
Xiao Miao's experience highlights the extreme disadvantage of job seekers in the current recruitment landscape. Companies have all the information, while candidates can only see the surface details.
Although policies exist to prevent discrimination, many hidden barriers still exist, often in the minds of HR professionals or in the systems they use.
---
Conclusion: How Should We View This?
Companies can set requirements, but they must be fair and transparent. If a first degree is a criterion, it should be clearly stated from the beginning. If there are exceptions, the criteria should be defined and evaluated objectively. If a candidate doesn't meet a requirement, they should be informed early on, not at the last moment.
The preference for a first degree often reflects a lack of belief in the potential of individuals who have grown and learned over time. Society needs lifelong learners, not just those who succeeded in a single exam. Companies that ignore this miss out on talented individuals with valuable skills and experiences.
Job seekers should be more proactive in protecting themselves by doing background checks and asking clear questions during the interview process. They should also keep records of all relevant information for future reference.
To Xiao Miao, I want to say: Your eight-year journey of education is not just about obtaining a degree; it's about building real skills and personal growth. Your junior college diploma is not a flaw; it's the starting point of your story. Those who have worked hard to advance should not be discriminated against based on their initial educational background. They deserve fair rules that are clear and consistent.
By being transparent and fair from the start, companies can create a more equitable recruitment environment for both parties.