I'm guessing your career started during the asset bubble (that we're arguably still in)? Historically speaking, just because you "solved the problems" doesn't

I'm guessing your career started during the asset bubble (that we're arguably still in)? Historically speaking, just because you "solved the problems" doesn't mean you "get the job". When I first started working (not originally in tech, but plenty of tech places did this too) this is how (professional, skilled) jobs were filled: - Position posted with a deadline for submissions (usually 2 weeks to a month out, sometimes more). - Organization waits until all applications are received. - Resumes/Cover letters are reviewed. - Calls to screen candidates. - 1/2 day to full day onsite scheduled (depending on level of role). - 1 candidate gets selected from the pool who made it to the final round. It was also not uncommon that the organization would decide that none of the candidates had the qualifications they were looking for and they would simply, wait and start the process over in 3 months. It was much closer to buying a house in a hot sellers market than tech hires in the last decade. This world of continuous hiring where the goal is to maintain a headcount rather than fill a role is fairly exclusive to the recent tech boom where growth was what mattered most. It's historically normal to get to the final onsite and still lose the offer because competition beat you out.