That flies in the face of an argument I’ve heard from employers, who say AI is a godsend for young job hunters. One senior partner at a law firm told me that the technology would help level the playing field by helping applicants from disadvantaged backgrounds polish their resumes and craft professional emails. “It’s an equaliser,” he said.
But AI can’t address the fundamental advantages that privileged candidates still enjoy, like alumni networks and the cultural capital that comes from growing up in professional environments. It might level the playing field on presentation, but not on what really counts in getting ahead.
BOTH JOB APPLICANTS AND EMPLOYERS ARE LOSING
With all that in mind, it seems impossible to recommend the right approach for graduates, including those from elite MBA programmes who are already facing a sluggish market for white-collar jobs.
Using AI could help them statistically increase their chances of getting an interview, sure, but not using it can also help them stand out. There are no easy answers.
One thing that’s clear, though, is that we’re witnessing a new kind of asymmetric competition in a job market, where the most valuable skill is the ability to slip through AI gatekeepers.
That’s not innovation. It’s dysfunction masked as efficiency. Ironically, both sides are losing this battle.
The solution isn’t more AI, but a return to human judgment. Companies that maintain more of a human element in their hiring process can give themselves a competitive advantage, and spot those whose talents don’t translate neatly into an AI-friendly format. That is well worth the investment.
