Much easier to reject bad CVs. On the other hand every job post is the same and you have to check Glassdoor and Crunchbase before applying to a potential bad company
Literally yes. I have reviewed over 10,000 resumes between my last two positions. Our current posting has 3,600 applicants.
Should we close the posting? Probably, but we don’t. Whenever I have time I sift through the resumes. Most don’t get looked at for even 10 seconds. Cover letters don’t get read. Stop including cringe things like “Microsoft Word” before PHP and Python in your skills, it makes me think you have nothing better to offer besides what I’ve read so far, and I’ll skip reading the rest of your resume because of it.
We can’t, the filter before you makes sure word is listed in proficiencies, and if not, rejects the applicant even if they wrote Word themselves.
You’re what’s wrong with job searching
Did you want their fulltime job to be reading thousand of resumes or did you want them to be an actual manager?
It’s a broken system with no solution in sight.
But yeah let’s blame this worker who has thousands of resumes that they have to figure out how to review asap.
Let’s completely fuck off thousands of applicants who hear nothing about job opportunities because the reviewer doesn’t like certain words.
Countless recruiters give some very basic advice in person and online, and they almost always say to put skills in decreasing order of importance. Job applications are god awful, but I really don’t think being asked to follow basic instructions is a big ask. Blame companies, not recruiters.
What solution to you propose? What do you envision yourself doing if you are the recipient of several thousand applications for one position?
If you can’t review the applicants properly, then you shouldn’t be reviewing resumes. Find a new job.
Yo you’re probably alright but i seriously hate you rn.
What if the person is REALLY GOOD with Microsoft Word, though?
Then they applied for the wrong job. I haven’t used a word processor at all in many years. Power point is (saddly) important, but no word processor. When I write docs markdown or restructured text is what i’m looking for, since both can link directly to the code.
(saddly)
lmao
Word
Fixed, thanks!
Word 👍
So basically, you read their job titles and a couple bullet points? Maybe the skill section?
I’m job hunting, and I’ve just switched to a strategy where I focus on those things being amazing and tailored to the job.
Skill section, then I skim bulletpoints if I haven’t binned it yet. Anything that passes the bulletpoint section goes to a check-later pile, which I revisit and choose who to interview
Cool, that sounds about right. I’m guessing you’re hiring mostly for individual contributors if you’re looking at skills first?
IT here, I skim the titles, company, dates, and look at a couple bullet point. If things look good I’ll read the full doc. I don’t hundreds or thousands of apps though since I’m not offering a remote or hybrid position
I know you’re getting slammed but honestly people say they can “use Microsoft Word” but I bet 70% of people in an interview/test setting (ie no googling) could not create a dynamic paragraph that changes its content based on a dropdown and then print the paragraph but not the drop-down.
This is why it is soooo important to network. I’m far more likely to read a resume given to me by a friend or someone I know verses a random resume that lands in my inbox.
“Networking” increasingly just means nepotism.
Nepotism is when you hire someone unqualified because you know them.
Networking is when you hire someone who is qualified because you know them.
It always did.
Who would you rather hire, a qualified person you’ve met at least once outside of the hiring process and like, or a qualified person who is a complete unknown outside of their likely embellished resume?
This thread is just so sensitive it seems. I have been on the shit end of the stick this year with losing two jobs and I still agree with so many of the recruiters in this thread and your comment. I don’t want to network, but sadly that does increase the likelihood of getting my resume looked at. These people need to understand that people who are looking at resumes are also working, if your qualifications are in the details instead of being upfront then I’m sorry, no one will spend longer time to look at your resume compared to thousands of other resumes.
Use a form attached to a spreadsheet FTLoG! What a finicky way to dunce your job!
Also stop using those terrible templates that look someone crashed into Adobe InDesign one day.
The hate you got from your comment is really coming from edgy people with no real professional or leadership experience who just hope and pray that everything is like an episode of the Smurfs or something.
If you’re spending a lot of time on applications, you’re doing something wrong.
You find out if it’s a good company during the interview. Trying to figure it out before hand is like running a background check on someone before swiping on tinder.
Your resume should be ready, your cover letter ready with just a few sentences to swap per job app, and the entire thing should take like 2-5 minutes, max.
I have to disagree. Job postings straight up lie. My husband got to his second interview at a place before they revealed everything from the posting and first interview was a lie and it was a door to door sales job.
Or they’ll lie about the responsibility or the pay of the job and he won’t learn that until deep into the interview process, which is costly in time, and stress, not to mention dressing up.
I just recently got to the third interview for a software engineering job. 5 minutes in, they asked about my requirements for compensation and I gave a conservative range for a senior engineer role. They said “thanks for your time” and ended the interview. I spent 4 hours total on this to be told my comp request was too high. So fucking sick of this bullshit
Leave them a review on Glassdoor. Call out their recruiting team.
Their recruiter sucks, because that should be one of the first discussions you have after initial qualifications.
I am genuinely curious how often this is policy vs just recruiters being bad at their jobs. Maybe they’re incentivized to generate leads/candidates instead of actual hires? That kind of makes sense if senior leadership is dumb enough.
The thing is that we discussed it in the initial call. They seemed fine with it. I’m guessing they got some sucker to take a lower rate
What a bizarre interview process man. Sorry you even had to be part of that. That’s so dumb.
Pay should be discussed before the first interviews starts.
The third interview may not have been the final one, believe it or not.
Then these people acted in bad faith. When hiring someone, even if you have decided that this person isn’t going to be the one, based just on salary or whater thing, you should still go through the process like normal and send off a rejection letter after. Cutting things short like that was just rude and unprofessional. You dodged a huge bullet here, honestly, because you’d never want to work for people who would treat you like that.
Going through the process despite knowing you’re going to reject an applicant is textbook “bad faith”.
You don’t qualify a lead before talking to the person. That’s rule 1 of sales efficiency.
It’s far better to waste an hour once figuring out a job posting was a waste of time than to waste 5 minutes 200 times finding out job postings are a waste of time.
You vet them once they ask you for an interview/phone screen. Vetting takes a lot more time than applying. So apply, then if it matters, check them out.
Nowadays yeah. I miss the days I went through the job listings in the two major newspapers and sent off resumes and was done for the week.
That makes sense as there are a limited number of jobs. However, recruiters do a lot of work to get more applicants to apply and they often are the ones doing initial interviews
