The Parable of the Job Applicants

One day while teaching, Josh was asked, ”Teacher, has the accountability of elected officials to the electorate turned itself on its head to the point where concern over reelection has supplanted governance?”

Josh spoke thus:

Ten job applicants were attempting to solve a puzzle.  The solution to the puzzle was an instruction.  Any job applicant who could carry out the instruction would be awarded a job.

The first job applicant declared the puzzle impossible and left the room.  There were nine job applicants remaining.

The second job applicant decried how the application process set applicant against applicant and left the room.  There were eight job applicants remaining.

The third job applicant needed a drink and left the room.  There were seven job applicants remaining.

The fourth job applicant examined the puzzles left behind by the first three job applicants, and finding them all to be different from the fourth job applicant’s puzzle, deemed them of no guidance.  The fourth job applicant tried to determine whether the first three job applicants’ puzzles were easier or more difficult than the fourth job applicant’s puzzle.  Finding all four job applicants’ puzzles to be equally difficult, the fourth job applicant forgot which job applicant’s puzzle was the fourth job applicant’s puzzle.  Confronted with four applicants’ puzzles to solve, the fourth applicant was overwhelmed and left the room.  There were six job applicants remaining.

The fifth job applicant, seeing the first four job applicants leave, became discouraged at how difficult the job application process was and left the room.  There were five job applicants remaining.

The sixth job applicant was the fifth job applicant’s friend and had only joined in the job-applicant puzzle process to support the fifth job applicant.  When the fifth job applicant left the room, the sixth job applicant left the room.  There were four job applicants remaining.

The seventh job applicant asked the eighth job applicant how the eighth job applicant was doing.  The eighth job applicant told the seventh job applicant that the solution to the eighth job applicant’s puzzle appeared to be the word “puzzles.”  The seventh and eighth applicants told the examination proctor that the solution to their puzzles was the word “puzzles.”  The proctor told the seventh and eighth job applicants that the solution to the puzzle was not the word “puzzles,” and told the seventh and eight applicants that they could continue to attempt to solve the puzzle.  The seventh and eighth job applicants declined and left the room.  There were two job applicants remaining.

The ninth job applicant looked at all the puzzles lying around the room.  The ninth job applicant looked at the eighth job applicant’s puzzle and agreed that the solution appeared to be the word “puzzles.”  The ninth job applicant had decided that the solution to the ninth job applicant’s puzzle appeared to be “all.”

“What does your puzzle say?” the ninth job applicant asked the tenth job applicant.

“My puzzle seems to say, ‘bring,’” the tenth job applicant said.

The ninth and tenth job applicants decided to share the remaining puzzles.  All of the individual puzzles, the ninth and tenth job applicants agreed, resolved as individual words.

“What if we combine them?” the ninth job applicant asked the tenth job applicant.

“Then we’ll probably have a job,” the tenth job applicant told the ninth job applicant.

When the ninth job applicant and the tenth job applicant had combined all the words, the brought them up to the proctor.

“You have a job,” the proctor told them, “Come in again tomorrow.”

The ninth and tenth job applicants shook hands with the proctor and shook hands with each other and left the room, leaving behind them ten words:

“Gather all the puzzles and bring them to the proctor.”