Community Discussion
r/jobhunting
did i just bomb my interview with this response??
Picture this: You're 20 minutes into what seems like a solid HR interview. Then comes the curveball question about your future goals, and you decide to be completely honest. You mention your pending graduate school applications with results coming in April. The interviewer circles back at the end, pressing harder: if you get accepted, what would you choose?
One Reddit user found themselves in exactly this scenario, and their candid response about considering part-time studies sent the job hunting community into a frenzy of debate. The thread exploded with over 100 comments, revealing a sharp divide between those advocating radical honesty and others preaching strategic omission.
So, you went on a date with a lady, you told her you already have plans with someone else this summer, and that you might choose that other woman instead. What do you think that sounds like?
This dating analogy cuts straight to the heart of why this response landed so poorly. The commenter nails the fundamental issue: timing and commitment signals. When you tell an employer you're actively pursuing other options with a specific timeline, you're essentially announcing your potential departure date before you've even been hired.
I would have been more generic. Something to the extent that in the next 3-5 years you're looking to get your master's because your long term goals are...... Even when you mentioned your timeline, they gave you an opportunity to say that if you got the job you would go to school part-time in the evenings and spin it a little as to how that knowledge you gain would be benefiting the company. Saying you think they offer part time you might consider makes it pretty clear that you'd quit for school and they'd be back to interviewing people in a few months.
The Great Honesty Debate
The thread split into two camps: the radical transparency advocates and the strategic communication crowd. Both sides make compelling points, but they're solving different problems.
Anything that makes you seem loyal to the company: Promotions, Taking on more work, Business trips, Client onboarding. Of course, you don't mean any of this, and will likely never do it, but companies want to see that you know how to play the lying game without coming off as a liar (or egotistical).
This comment sparked controversy for its cynical tone, but it reveals an uncomfortable truth about interview dynamics. The commenter acknowledges what many won't say out loud: interviews involve performance and positioning, not just factual Q&A sessions.
No, don't mention the masters at all! They'll either think you'll do 2-3 years with them and once you've been trained and barely contributing, you're bailing for a masters program and will then go to a competitor or they'll think you'll want them to pay for your masters and get flexible time off to complete it.
What Actually Went Wrong
The original poster made a tactical error around specificity and timing rather than simply being honest about having goals. Let's break down what created the problems:
- Immediate timeline: 'Results in mid-April' puts a countdown timer on their commitment
- Uncertain language: 'I think' and 'might consider' suggests they haven't thought through the logistics
- Passive positioning: They made it sound like external factors would decide their employment fate
- No company benefit: They framed education as potentially competing with work, not enhancing it
Better Responses That Actually Work
The Reddit community offered several tactical alternatives that maintain honesty while avoiding the commitment red flags:
The Strategic Pivot
'Yes, I am currently applying for masters programs and the result should come in mid April'
'I'm committed to continuous learning and may pursue advanced education in the future, but any decisions would be made thoughtfully with my employer's needs in mind'
When Pressed on Specifics
'I think the university offers a part time option that I might consider'
'If I do pursue further education down the line, I'd prioritize options that complement my professional growth and allow me to continue contributing fully to my role'
Notice how these responses acknowledge ambition while emphasizing professional commitment. They're strategic framings that align personal goals with employer interests rather than outright lies.
Sounds like a politician already in office running for a different office wanted to keep their job as they look at the new job lol
This political comparison is surprisingly apt. Politicians running for higher office while holding current positions face the same challenge: how do you pursue new opportunities without appearing disloyal to current constituents? The successful ones master the art of positioning ambition as expanded service, not abandonment.
The Bigger Picture
This Reddit thread reveals something deeper about modern hiring dynamics. Employers increasingly expect longer-term commitment while employees prioritize flexibility and growth. These competing expectations create an interview minefield where honest answers can torpedo opportunities.
2.3 years
Average Job Tenure
For workers aged 25-34
73%
Want Career Growth
Primary reason people change jobs
41%
Employers Worried
About retention during hiring
The disconnect is clear: employers want stability in an era of job mobility, while workers pursue growth in organizations that may not provide clear advancement paths. This tension plays out in interview rooms where both sides perform versions of loyalty and commitment that may not reflect reality.
Key Lessons
- Specificity kills optionality. Vague timelines preserve flexibility for both parties.
- Frame personal goals as complementary to company success, not competing priorities.
- When pressed for details, emphasize thoughtful decision-making over predetermined outcomes.
- Strategic communication involves positioning truthful information advantageously rather than lying.
- Remember that interviews are business conversations, not confession sessions.