I find this study interesting but wonder if the wording is specifically done to cause some sensationalism.

> However, there is a twist: for positions on distributed teams, the firm consistently hired more experienced workers, even after reopening. This divergence suggests that the firm’s hiring decisions were influenced by the complications of remote work rather than other macroeconomic trends.

They don’t consider (almost intentionally) that remote positions don’t have the same restrictions as in-person positions. Anyone meeting desired qualifications can be considered for a remote position. Only people willing to relocate to, or already live near, a target office and meet the qualifications can be considered for an in-person job. Remote positions therefore are likely to be more competitive and difficult for inexperienced candidates because the pool of candidates is far larger. The hiring manager is incentivized to pick the person they believe will contribute the most for the amount they’re willing to pay.

The findings about mentorship in-person may be true but it is strange to put that as the deciding reason. There are no details provided over how “quality” is quantified nor decided. Selecting a sample size of one firm to analyze in detail without looking at others to confirm this feels very flawed.