This is something I have some expertise in (I run a recruiting company that uses a standardized interview, and I used to run assessments for another). It's also something I've thought a lot about. There is absolutely truth to what you're saying. But like most obvious observations that aren't playing themselves out, there's more to it than that. ----- One: curiosity, passion, and focus matter a lot. Every company that hires through us is looking for them in one form or another. But they still have to figure out a means by which to measure them. One company thinks "passion" takes the form of "wanting to start a company someday", and worries that someone who isn't that ambitious won't be dedicated enough to push past the problems they run into. But another thinks that "passion" is someone who wants to tinker with optimizing some FPGA all night long because the platonic ideal of making a 15% more efficient circuit for a crypto node is what Real Technical Engineers do. These companies are not just looking for passion in practice, but for "passion for". And so you might say okay, screen for that. But the problem is that passion-for is easily faked - and is something you can easily fail to display if your personality skews the wrong way. When I interviewed at my previous company many years ago, they asked me why I wanted to work there. I answered honestly: it seemed like a good job and that I'd be able to go home and sleep at night. This was a TERRIBLE answer that, had I done less well on other components of the interview or had they been interviewing me for more than a low-level job, would likely have disqualified me. It certainly would not have convinced them I had the passion to make something happen. But a few years later I was in the leadership of that company, and today I run a successor to it trying to carry the torch when they could not. If you asked me the same question today about why I started a company, an honest answer would be similar: I do this business because I know it and because I enjoy its challenges, not because it's the Most Important Thing In The World To Me. I'm literally a startup founder, and I would not pass 90% of "see if someone's passionate enough to work at a startup" interview questions if I answered them honestly. On the flip side, a socially-astute candidate who understands the culture of the company and the person they're interviewing with can easily fake these signals. There is a reason that energetic extraverts tend to do well in business - or rather, there are hundreds of reasons, and this is one of them. Social skills let you manipulate behavioral interviews to your advantage, and if you're an interviewer, you don't want candidates doing that. So in effect, what you're doing here is replacing one shibboleth that has something to do with technical skill, with another that is more about your ability to read an interviewer and "play the game". Which do you think correlates better with technical excellence? ----- And two: lots of people are curious, passionate, energetic, and not skilled. You say that a person with those traits "will learn" everything needed. That might even be true. But "will learn" can be three years, five years, down the line. One of the things we ask on our interview is a sort of "fizzbuzz-plus" style coding problem (you can see a similar problem - the one we send candidates to prep them - at https://www.otherbranch.com/practice-coding-problem if you want to calibrate yourself on what I'm about to say). It is not a difficult problem by any normal standard. It requires nothing more than some simple conditional logic, a class or two, and the basic syntax of the language you're using. Many apparently-passionate, energetic, and curious engineers simply cannot do it. The example problem I linked is a bit easier than our real one, but I have reliable data on the real one, which tells me that sixty-two percent of candidates who take it do not complete even the second step. Now, is this artificial? Yeah, but it's artificially easy. It involves little of the subtlety and complexity of real systems, by design. And yet very often we get code that (translated into the example problem I linked) is the rough equivalent of: print("--*-") with no underlying data structure, or if (row == 1 && col == 3) where the entire board becomes an immutable n^2 case statement that would have to be wholly rewritten if the candidate were to ever get to later steps of the problem. Would you recommend someone who wrote that kind of code, no matter how apparently curious, passionate, or energetic they were?