Lesson 1

Welcome to the RMI_2501_Fall_2026 wiki!

Read this and share what you think. Note: This is not an individual but group assignment. Build on what your classmates already added, feel free to edit as you wish.

The goal: produce a sound, original, clear and concise document at the end.

Deadline: Mon, Aug 31 10PM.

Amina Dorjjigjid:

I think trace hiring is a good idea because AI can nowadays help people make good resumes and CVs. This can make it harder for companies to know a person's skills and what they can do. I think looking at someone's experiences, projects, and how they worked on them can show their skills better. I also think it could be unfair to people who did not have many opportunities. Overall, I think trace hiring could be a good way to hire people based on their actual skills and abilities.

Rigai Doi: Trace Hiring seems like a pretty good idea, but I still see a few problems with it. “A candidate willing to appear on camera and follow an unusual instruction has already shown more intent than a resume ever could,” I think it is more likely to measure who is willing to put up with extra trouble in the hiring process rather than who is actually a better fit for the job. If companies start widely using Trace Hiring in the future, it could also create another kind of selection bias, which is the people with the most free time may win. Furthermore, the article mostly ignores the perspective of job seekers. In the past, a job seeker might spend hours or even days carefully editing a resume, writing a cover letter and going through three rounds of interviews. At the same time, a company can post a job at almost no cost, leave it up for months, end up hiring internally, or sometimes not even have any real plan to hire someone in the near future. So why is lowering the cost of applying for jobs described as something that is “breaking” the system, while companies treating applicants’ time as basically free does not even become a part of the discussion? Nowadays, AI help people compare positions more quickly, identify skill gaps, and even understand poorly written job descriptions. I don't think AI is creating "low-effort applications." It is reducing the information gap between companies and job seekers.

Akshaya Parameswaran:

I think trace hiring is a good idea, and the main reason is that AI isn't outright banned and it's more about who uses it better. The second stage in the trace hiring process allows candidates to use AI tools, which I think makes sense because technology keeps evolving, and we have to evolve with it as well. So instead of dismissing it, I think using it in a smart way can be really effective. Of course, there's the problem of AI being overly accessible and producing generic results, so companies that use trace hiring have an opportunity to observe candidates' skills while still allowing the use of AI. And I think that makes it easier for companies to select deserving candidates without viewing AI as something negative.

Dillon Terrill:

I think trace hiring sounds like a good idea and is a very interesting concept, however, to fully implement it and to fully realize it would only be possible in the largest of companies and it would dramatically increase the amount of resources required in order to simply hire people. Ultimately, this idea, while certainly plausible, becomes too burdensome on the majority of employers and also is not going to solve many of the current problems with employment that exist in the hiring processes of most companies. Most companies, especially the largest companies, abide by the Peter Principle and will hire almost anyone for entry level positions and then proceed to promote many of them until they hit the point that they become unable to be productive. Additionally, too many companies' Human Resource departments are unable to separate their biases and personal beliefs from the hiring processes and will hire a hundred people who align with them before they'll hire the most qualified for the position. Finally, multi-step hiring processes are extremely uncommon and are only truly relevant for a handful of job positions that would require specific skills and knowledge or specific capabilities. If this "trace hiring" idea was to be implemented in any widespread fashion, many companies would have to either eliminate the training period of the job and incorporate it into this process, or, more likely, they would simply choose to hire traditionally and not have as much of a test of skills or knowledge just for the hiring process. In summation: while trace hiring is a somewhat novel concept, it is ultimately financially burdensome and also doesn't really solve many of the issues in human resource fields or in the job markets.

Sorana Mizuno: This topic is a real-world problem for me because I will start job-hunting within two years. I am scared that others who used AI-generated resumes will get the job that I want, although I don't use AI. Trace hiring would be a good solution to prevent this situation. As the article mentions that "the college degree is rapidly vanishing from job descriptions, as companies shift towards skills-based hiring.", this process helps recruiters observe candidates' skills that would be useful for actual works I feel that AI is no longer the tool that we can avoid using, and that is one reason that I agree with the idea of trace hiring.

Misaki Kasahara: I think trace hiring is a good idea for company to evaluate candidates how candidates think and work in real situation rather than relying on resumes and academic background. Especially, I like the idea of observing candidates during group work because it can show candidates' skills such as communication, adaptability, and team work which are hidden talents from application. However, it may take a lot of time and works for companies and candidates. For example, candidates may need to join online interview, group works, or additional evaluation. These works will less motivation to candidates who have lardy applied multiple companies. Therefore,I think companies will be required to balance both getting information about candidates and considering burden for candidates while trace hiring makes　recruitment more fair and effective.

Anson Jones: Trace hiring sounds like a really good idea in theory, especially if it's implemented in the way mentioned in the article, however I think that due to the resources and time(?) required for this process, it might be difficult to roll out into the everyday hiring process. As much as I hate to agree with AI usage, I do agree that people can use AI without making it a crutch and losing their own critical thinking skills. It is interesting that the trace hiring process doesn't discourage AI usage, just promotes the ability to reflect, call upon your past knowledge, as well as using the resources at your disposal to come to a conclusion/solve a problem; as long as you are able to show how you made it there in a way that proves your process would work for many different problems in the job. This goes well with the aspect of teamwork within the Trace hiring process, since being able to work alone as well as with others is one of the best skills you can have in the workplace in my opinion. That's why I believe that Trace hiring is a pretty good idea for bigger companies with the resources at their disposal.

Kana Fukumoto: This was an interesting topic, and I think trace hiring is a good idea and it should be utilized within more companies across the world. I personally have been wondering how job application have changed over the past few years with the rising popularity of AI. The process of cutting off generic applications made with AI must be draining and the human resources should not be wasted there. With trace hiring, the companies can see more than what can be appealed on a paper. Plus, regardless of the use of AI, I think it is good for the company to see how the applicant handle real problems, and how they work with teammates and how well they can self-reflect. This is also something a company cannot see from the information on a paper.

Yitong Gao I agree with Akshaya that companies should care more about who can use AI better, but I think another question is what “better” actually means. Just using AI to make a good and polished answer does not always mean this person has better ability. For me, a good AI user should also know how to question the answers from AI, find its limitations, and know when they should not depend on it. Sometimes, knowing when not to use AI can be as important as knowing how to use it. I also wonder if using AI will still be a competitive advantage in the future. Right now, knowing how to use AI well can be a useful skill, but AI is becoming easier and more accessible for everyone. If almost every candidate can use similar AI tools in the future, simply knowing how to use AI may not make someone special anymore. AI can be a “skill leveler” because it helps more people create good results. But at the same time, I think this can make human judgment and knowledge even more important. So maybe the better AI user is not the person who can get the best answer from AI, but the person who knows which part to accept, which part to question, and which part to reject.

Swara Deshpande I agree, that trace hiring can be an effective method in order to ensure, originality and honest candidates. The increased use of AI, has hindered with deserving applicants not being able to get the position they desire. Trace hiring can help resolve that issue. I think an important part of it is that even if someone is using AI for help, it is important as a person to verify, cross-check and critically analyze the response from it. This portray critical thinking and comprehension skills. While the use of AI is inevitable and sometimes increasingly helpful, trace hiring can promote a ethical and analytical use of it.

Jaeson Alomar:

Upon reading this article I was surprised that a solution for the AIs discrimination itself wasn't put in place yet before this more time consuming requirement of having people do these long unpaid interviews. Doing something like stripping resumes to a ID number for the AI itself and leaving personal info like name, race, and address out of the AIs radar feels like something that could be worked towards. But also a issue I saw with this wasn't just AI itself but a issue that was in the workforce before AI, and that's companies unrealistic standards. Especially for entry level jobs filtering those who don't fit a specific mold. The AI just seems like it gave preexisting corporate flaws steroids. Even with trace highering the flaws still exist, rewarding those who are better speakers and extroverted performers.

Leander Plum: It is a good approach, though not applicable to every company. In my opinion, written applications remain very useful, as they provide an initial overview of qualifications, experience, and past employment. As well as details like criminal records or other relevant information that must be disclosed truthfully anyway. From my own experience, I can say that it matters less whether they were drafted and structured with the help of AI, as long as the information is accurate. If the candidate fits the company's profile, they can subsequently be invited to a selection day featuring interviews and group tasks. This allows for the observation of collaboration, problem-solving skills, the use of AI, and the capacity for self-reflection much like in Trace Hiring. I have mixed feelings about mandatory application videos, as they can trigger skepticism, data privacy concerns, or camera anxiety. That said, if a company decides to implement them after weighing the potential downsides and consequences, I can understand that just as well as I can understand a company choosing not to. In my view, Trace Hiring could serve as a valuable supplement to the existing application process rather than a complete replacement.