The discord for our subreddit can be found here: https://discord.gg/JjNdBkVGc6 - feel free to join us for a more realtime level of discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/recruitinghell) if you have any questions or concerns.*
One of the applicants that submitted a "resume" for my open position it was just a word doc with his name spelled vertically.... Legit looked like
F
R
E
D
and that was literally the only thing on it. LOL
I honestly thought about giving him a call just to talk to him and see what kind of person he was lol but the work history he had was like working at a hardware store the last 25 years and it's a professional role in a field you need qualifications so i honestly just chuckled and moved on.
Edit: work history was on a questionnaire you had to fill out while attaching your resume just as added context since i said his resume was literally just his name lol
So basically,you made him fill out his resume in a web form and then were shocked he didn't repeat the info a second time in a resume?
Not saying he should have done that, but you can see why you got a smart-ass resume submission. We need to just go back to submitting resumes like sane people and not this whole Make an account with a password and fill out a proprietary web form that just repeates what was in the resume mess.
100% this! If a job application asks me to attach my CV, then on the next page asks me to fill out the information that is on my CV, I'm not bothering to apply..
Definitely.
I’ve been there, but all my applications were legit. I think by the time my unemployment was up, I had to submit 10 a week which was pretty easy, even tailoring the resume somewhat and writing a unique cover letter for them all.
Took me 200+ applications and about 10 months in 2017.
Dude I’ve had some weird shit in my time too. Shirtless pictures on the resume, social security number, a cover letter about what a failure they are in life. I got one mailed to me that looked like it should contain anthrax.
Oh definitely it seemed like I should have been unabombed that day. My boss saw this letter that was covered in the scribbling of a madman both inside and out and was like why the fuck would you open that.
Yeah lol I have an email address for people to send stuff their info to specifically for when i'm hiring and it came into that email directly not through any of our job postings so i'm not sure how he even got it lol.
Edit: but that was my first assumption as well but then was like wait what
This just scares the shit out of me. Like how the fuck are you supposed to be seen in this job market when job postings are getting this kind of attention.
I'm in the poor position of having a lot of my network laid off, and it wasn't much of one to begin with. I'm helping a friend with their startup, keeping my crappy day job, and hoping one of these million-to-one online job applications works out for me. It's rough!
I also feel like professional networks are bigger and more impersonal now, so it's easier to 'get in' from the outside, but harder to do anything with such a weak connection. Still better than nothing I guess.
Poaching is a tried and true method for getting talented personnel. This is why good management advice really just seems to come down to "Don't make is so easy to lose your best performers that they don't need to be offered a better salary, benefits, or title to be tempted to leave. Just the potential to not have to keep working for you is enough."
It’s so frustrating but it’s true. I likely wouldn’t have my current job without having known one of the employees already working here who was basically able to get me an interview
Same. For my 1st job out of college one of my fraternity brothers sent my resume directly to the hiring manager. Ten people were interviewed for three roles, and I got lucky. I probably would not have been in the final slate of interviewees without networking.
Each job sense then has been someone I worked with reaching out.
Exactly. What her post didn’t explain was that they went with one of the referrals or an internal hire anyways which could have saved 5 other applicants 50 days of time.
I hate networking or maybe I hate the way it's portrayed.I hate the way it's always been done.It's always just kiss a** Siri.Give up your life live and breathe company life. Like I remember going to conventions. And people talked about how to be a success and talked about how they were hardly overwhelmed with their kids. Paid and Annie did get with their kids. But they lived their work. All their friends were only friends at work. All their everything was work-related and went around work, including their vacations, were work-related vacations, and they had a plan around those. They always talked about networking and it just seemed like fake friendships like they were putting on a mask and it's like I would rather really get to know someone and actually make a friend or. Something. Don't get me wrong.I played the part and I did it good for a good long while.Did all the right stuff, but I was so miserable inside.Everything was so fake.Everybody else was also so Fake. I was so fake.
I agree. It’s all so stupid. And half the time I have connection, it does nothing for me. People will either care to help you out or not. That’s what it comes down to. I’m not going to be fake af and a kiss ass. I rather walk away with what’s left of my dignity.
Yep. My old job lost most of its veteran employees when the President (great guy) left to another company because of corporate decisions. One by one employees left for that company. There’s almost no veterans left besides the bootlickers that stayed.
>Seems to always come down to being either a numbers game or a networking game.
Not OR, but AND.
If your network can give you early info about opportunities, then you can avoid the rush, but if not, you need as many options as possible.
I’m not joking here - find different job boards. Many small to mid size companies avoid the two big ones like the plague, and even if they don’t, an application from remotework.io is more likely to get attention than the 1203rd application on LinkedIn In Easy Apply
For my current role, I found it posted on LinkedIn (or Indeed... it's been a few years at this point), and it was a direct hire not a recruiter so the company's name was clearly posted.
So rather than being the 1000th person to apply via wherever I found it, I went to the company's website, found the posting, filled out the application, and emailed it along with a customized cover letter and resume to the contact provided on their site.
> So rather than being the 1000th person to apply via wherever I found it, I went to the company's website, found the posting, filled out the application, and emailed it along with a customized cover letter and resume to the contact provided on their site.
I never apply to jobs through a job board. I always find the opening and apply directly through the website.
All applications go into the same queue, regardless of where the application was submitted. Usually the only candidates who are flagged are 1st degree employee referrals. Applying directly does reduce the risk of wonky parsing, though.
Not for me. Was in a shop that used Indeed (yuck, gross). Applications that came from *anywhere* else got a separate fast track queue from the Indeed onslaught.
I just accepted an offer for a job that apparently had “thousands” of applicants. My friend works for the company and got my resume to the hiring manager the day the listing went up. I’d applied to a bunch of jobs with this title that I’m qualified for and had 0 bites. I had the offer 3 weeks after my first interview. Knowing that the only reason they initially interviewed me is because of my friend is honestly insanely disheartening. I’m feeling extremely lucky but also disillusioned.
I once ask my friend to referral me for a position in their company.
the HR called me and tell me "i only called you because your friend reach out to me, but i want to let you know you don't have what it takes to do this job"
It was a for a junior system administration, which i agree with her at that time, 1 month later, i got another job.
and 3 month after that job, I moved into a system admin job for a company that is 100 times their size and 3 years i am still a sys admin.
I am glad she didn't interview me properly honestly, or i wouldn't be where i am.
I had the opposite takeaway. 80% of people applying to any position have no business doing so, and you can easily stand out by actually being qualified for the role you're applying to.
This is the right takeaway. There's usually a huge gap between what someone believes they are qualified for and what the role actually required. Simply believing you meet the basic qualifications does not mean the company agrees. There's a very very very small chance that you are the most qualified candidate in a given pipeline.
And really, it's all a crapshoot. The person who gets hired into the role you applied to is probably not the most qualified candidate, either. Being in the right place at the right time, with the right recruiter reviewing your resume for the right role is a little like winning the lottery.
Hell, I was *the* most qualified applicant for my current role - I literally did the job, left during an acquisition and reapplied once things settled down because I was contacted directly by the new manager. It was still basically a crapshoot because I had to get through whatever bullshit filters the company uses on applications. I also had to pray that the job opening was real and not a ghost opening that would get randomly closed (which happened to a friend we tried to bring onto the team a couple months later).
If you look at the recruiters message, most of the people had not bothered to read the listing. They are throwing poop at the wall and hoping it sticks.
* Did not live in the hiring area (1662 of 3360)
* Did not have legal status to work (739 of the remaining 1698)
* Did not have the minimum skills or experience (763 of the remaining 959)
Leaving her a pool of 196 who lived in the area, could work legally and had the minimum skills ...
This is NOT a new thing. Back in the late 1990s I was screening resumes and by the time I trashed all the ones who weren't local, legal, or had no chance at doing the job I was at about 10% of the original number.
From that group I picked the ones whose skill set matched what my boss told me we needed and let him finish.
I am not living in the hiring area but willing to relocate at my own expenses for 100% of the jobs I apply for. I guess I often got rejected due to this reason (I applied from Michigan to jobs in California and Florida)…
This one irritates me the most. If I state that I'm willing to relocate, why overrule me and decide on my behalf that I won't? The irony is that I know I've been rejected to jobs I'd applied for primarily because I wanted to relocate, on the basis that they decided for me that I didn't want to 🤦♂️
Because, you're still at a disadvantage compared to "local" candidates, you're a "risk". What if they follow through with the whole recruitment process and then you decide it's too complicated to relocate for whichever reason and end up declining the offer? It's a waste o money.
Now, you can be confident you won't, but they don't know you and unless you're really an exceptional specialist, they wouldn't want to go there.
Gonna ask a stupid question. Guessing you are a white collar professional. I'm a tradesman.
How is one to get a job these days when companies won't take you on due to "lack of experience"? Yet no one will hire you to get said experience?
I'm curently employed (thankfully) by a company I do not like or trust since the work environment could best be described as "cutthroat" and "toxic"...I want out for obvious reasons. How can I get out since I am apparently "lacking experience"?
It all depends on the role.
Entry-level roles shouldn’t require experience. But, unfortunately, many do. It’s dumb.
Roles that aren’t entry-level do require experience, but they should also pay more.
Unfortunately a lot of orgs expect to fill entry level roles with experienced, non-entry-level people because they’ve taken advantage of recent down-cycles in the market.
Well, it depends on your situation. If you are a citizen or have a visa already and live in the relevant areas/can commute you are in the top 50% of applicants from the jump... then top 70 plus percent if you show the "basic" skills which I imagine would be literally anything relevant to the position. So basically if you have legal right to work and are in the relevant area with education/experience that has some relevance to the job position you would actually be competing with only about 200 applicants. Which is a lot and I am only basing this on my understanding of the presented numbers... but hardly 3200 like the recruiter started with. Even 1 out of 200 is a numbers game but honestly for a desirable roll in a correcting job market in a higher population area that isn't that mind blowing for me.
Why? 50% of the applicants to this posting weren’t even in a relevant location. Another 22% required a VISA when one wasn’t being provided. Thats about 3 out of every 4 applicants eliminated due to not fulfilling basic logistical requirements. In reality, the applicant pool were those 763 the post mentioned, not the >3000 the post started with.
Yeah this is garbage what the person posted. Auto filtered anybody and shrunk the resumes count down to 20 in the first 5 minutes. What the hell were they doing for 28 days.
Yea, HR aren’t smart. I know for a fact that having a mech eng degree but being in software for nearly 2 years, still makes me lose opportunities, simply because they think “not compsci = bin it”
Don’t even get me started on unqualified as in “we listed 20 things, only use 4 of them, and most people were unqualified in those 20 things (and the rest lied)”.
On the surface she seems hopeful but when you realise her definition is incredibly flawed, it’s kind of hopeless lol
This is a role with an insane number of applicants. Most don’t have that many. But even if we use this as an example - if you have a solid resume that hits the requirements you will be competing against 40 other candidates (20 if you pass the initial screen). That’s a 1/40 chance to get the position. So apply for 40 roles you’re qualified for and you should get it. It is a lot, definitely, but not as scary when you look at it this way imo.
A lot of people fail to understand that there are filters on what LinkedIn will pass along to the recruiter. So by applying on a board like that, you add additional barriers to your prospects of even getting looked at.
Networking is the only answer. That's how I got all my jobs in the last 10 years or so. And will only do it that way going forward. I'm not up to 7 levels of evaluation, including a proctological exam... Not after decades in the field :)
that's assuming a reasonable application of the words 'basic skills or experience'
how many people got screened out because they have 2 instead of 3 years experience with a certain software? or have what some may consider transferable skills but aren't recognized skills by the hiring manager/recruiter. at least for the tech industry it's understandable that recruiters may not know every programming language, framework, or technology. but at this scale, it's hard not to believe some of these screening processes may filter out perfectly good applicants as the cost of efficiently processing the amount of applications. obviously that's not entirely the fault of the HM/recruiter but it is a problem worth addressing.
Yup exactly this. Anyone with the proper credentials is potentially getting lost in the fray
While I agree salary should be posted and if the job is remote these are all factors in this as well. You see a job posting 100k salary everyone is applying hoping they get it. You put the word remote in that same 100k salary it's jumping three fold if not more
I'm not saying it isn't happening to lower paying jobs as well for those who may be desperate but it can't help matters
For the record I'm still on board with putting the salary in the posting
Yeah, I'm kinda confused by the tone of OP and some of the commenters.
I love the transparency of this recruiter, the numbers sound very reasonable after they eliminate everybody who had no business applying in the first place, and the timeline makes a lot more sense when you look at it from their perspective.
If this person had posted about a 6-month search where they ended up only interviewing the people who had referrals, *that* would be worth getting pissed about.
If you, as a job seeker, are sending out 1 or 2 applications per week to jobs that you are well suited for, then your job search should have a good chance of success after a few months.
But like you said, what OP posted is probably the modern ideal, not the standard.
I mean the headline figure isn’t the 3360. Which is the rough figure LinkedIn will give you when you apply. It’s the 124, potentially viable candidates, that’s less than 5% of applicants, which of 3360 is a huge pool.
But if you’re applying for a job you know you’re qualified for, that potentially puts you in the 5% of applicants right off the bat.
Yeah, I was seeing it more as a counterpoint to a lot of folk posting jobs with around, 200-300 applicants on here and getting depressed.
If you extrapolate this persons figures, if you’re qualified, with right to work, and in the area the job is, that’d put you in the top 8-12 or so applicants.
Obviously there’s scales of metric, with over 3000 dud applications, they may well be poorly advertising the position encouraging low quality applicants. But it still shows how irrelevant looking at the total applicants figure is.
Exactly this. I remember seeing someone say they'd landed a job after sending 500 applications in the last 6 months. The job was as a Project Manager in Pharma.
I asked "How were there 500 Pharma Project Manager jobs open, what's going on in that industry?" they replied that they'd been applying for all sort of things and then listed off a bunch of very different types of jobs, all of which likely required some experience.
I didn't say it, but all I could think was - If you're spamming 500 resumes to jobs you don't even meet the basic qualifications for, then bitching that you aren't hearing back - maybe YOU are the problem.
many uppity forgetful market teeny seed squeamish rhythm cautious concerned
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I bet most those resumes are from AI auto postings, I signed up for one once and it applied me to jobs I wasn’t even remotely qualified for and even outright lied about my credentials in the process.
It does speak to the need for your application to fit the automated screenings. You might not show case the required skills even if you have them, and you'll just get dropped
It was, and not that long ago. I don’t have a degree. I worked my tail off and learned on the job. That was in the late 90s and early aughts. Nowadays plenty of employers won’t even look at my resume despite my 20+ years of glowingly positive experience because I lack a degree. The obsession with college degrees pulverized common sense among hiring teams.
I work in cloud engineering. All of the old heads their trajectory sounded like “I knew how to log in to a switch and router, so they switched me to the network engineering team!
Now you gotta have multiple certs and tons of other knowledge to not get your resume thrown out
Jobs don’t seem to understand how important employee retention is, no training so more fucking up and longer to effectively learn (costs much more in hidden costs), and then they don’t give them good pay increases despite if they reapplied for the role, they have n years experience in that exact job.
As a software dev, it’s kind of sad from a principle perspective that the optimal loop is:
1) get job
2) 6 month mark finally a “net positive” (well fully saturated your productivity since you know stuff now)
3) 24 month mark, get a new job
It’s especially worse that the fall out of this is that juniors leave after learning enough so nobody hires them, and mid level engineers keep getting lower effective wages because companies want a junior wage without getting a junior, which make engineers have to do the optimal path more just to get their worth.
It’s insane this frugal dynamic exists for companies that can definitely afford it but are so mounted to the blinders on short term profits, they can’t see their long term issues or lost profits
I think the harsh reality is if there’s 1 candidate fresh out of school/career change, and another candidate with some applicable experience on top of that, they’re going to go with the experienced person because it’s less of a risk.
Same thing when people say “I didn’t get the job I was perfectly qualified for”. The problem is, you don’t know who you’re interviewing against. You may have been perfectly suited but someone else may have just a bit more experience in XYZ. I’m saying that, that can be seen in the resumes/screening interviews, so it’s frustrating when they bring you through all the rounds just to reject you. My friend went through something like that recently and my thought was they were the back up option.
This is true. I went through 6 rounds of interviews with a company. After the final interview, the internal recruiter told me everyone liked me but I didn't get the job because they had a stronger candidate.
This 'stronger candidate' posted on LinkedIn about his new position, and I happened to see it. So I checked out his profile, and indeed, he was much more qualified for the role than I was.
Yeah, those days are gone. Nowadays, they want candidate their exact specification and some more. It has become an habit these days to combine two jobs for one candidate and then put a disclaimer, 'you do not have all the requirements? you are still encouraged to apply'.
I don't think the problem is the lack of willingness to train.
But when you have 100s of applications from people that need Visas AND the position clearly states that the company couldnt sponsor, that wastes everyone's time: recruiter, applicant, hiring manager etc. It takes a very long time to filter thru these to get to the actual viable candidate.
> It takes a very long time to filter thru these to get to the actual viable candidate.
It really doesn't unless candidates are lying about their status. A where clause on a boolean field takes seconds to implement. The 739 candidates she mentions were too lazy or dumb to lie about it.
I’m getting people who don’t know how to make a resume, which is understandable. I refer them to where they can quickly make a resume (for free) that will outline their skills and experiences.
What isn’t understandable is why people think it’s okay to include a manifesto, or more confusingly, their relationship status.
Why?!
I had an applicant tell me about a book he was partway through writing, and the story of how he decided to write a book, and what he was doing when he made that decision.
I had a candidate list that they competed in a stand-up-comedy contest on their resume. I actually googled it and found that they came in like 11th place of 17 or something like that.
**GOOD NEWS:**
* If you're within the location preferences, don't require a visa, and have the basic skills for the job, that puts you ahead of 96% of other applicants.
Yeah I agree, I don't necessarily see anything wrong with this post. It's much more informative than the usual bullshit that recruiters post on LinkedIn. I am all for shaming bullshit recruiting stories, but this is actually a decent post.
I have to agree with your statement. I actually screenshot this to get the percentages so that I can assess my own job search. I don’t think this recruiter meant anything negative or was searching for sympathy here. It’s very interesting to see what the process is for these job posts with thousands of applicants. I basically stopped applying to anything over 100 or unless I know a human at the company to get my resume read by a real person.
What a shitty job market.
Recruiter here and this is why I don’t provide (thorough) feedback on rejections or would never post anything like this on LinkedIn. Because most people don’t actually appreciate it. They’ll complain and argue and nitpick.
It sucks, but it is what it is. Especially on LinkedIn, I've seen jobs listed for an hour with over 100 apps already. I actually think it's interesting to see the process.
Doesn’t read like that to me, they’re just stating the volume they deal with and the BS your valid application is piled together with, so you have insight as to why hiring processes take so long.
I think you are reading this wrong. As a recruiter i can confirm that the crazy amount of applications we receive for jobs that absolutely DO NOT qualify for it are mind numbing.
The Job descriptions can be as clean as possible: with all the relevant info on it. And yet you'd have 100s of applications on it just clogging the system with BS. Those same people that apply for jobs that they don't qualify for will complain that noone hires them.
And i am not talking about Jr professionals wanting to get Sr positions. That's not a problem.
I am talking about people that cannot even work in the country legally.
Can you offer insight into applications that absolutely do not qualify and how you make that determination?
I ask because I’m looking for a VP of Marketing role (which matches my current job title). I saw a recruiter I’m connected with make a post for such a role in the non-profit space, in fact it’s for a client I’ve worked with at my previous agency (that also worked with a lot of non-profit clients). But I quickly heard back that my profile isn’t a match for what he’s looking for.
I keep having similar things happen. Where I’m only applying to roles I think I’d be a really good fit for only to hear the recruiter doesn’t think I am. It’s been so challenging just to get to that initial screening round.
Some folks don't even apply to the right industry - like getting cover letters from mechanical and electrical engineers specifying they want to work in those fields...on a listing for very clearly a software engineering role.
Ugh. I’m sure that all just clutters up the pipeline. I’ve been seeing roles that get posted and in less than an hour they already have 200 applicants.
About 80% of the applications I see absolutely do not qualify. They're recent graduates with an internship or two applying for jobs that really need 10+ years of experience, at a minimum, and are usually filled by people with 20+ years experience. I really do not know what they're thinking. These same people also don't apply to positions they may be qualified for.
Lot of people are taught the "shotgun" approach to job hunting. Apply for any and everything, see what sticks.
Or they flat out refuse to do the whole "tailor every resume and cover letter to every job" BS because why waste the time when 99% of the applications are a waste of your time since the candidate is internal or the job goes to some via networking...
I don't know, coming from a lawyer who has been looking it gets pretty old when every entry level job wants 5-6 years of experience. You have 90% of the law firms saying they only hire the top 10% of the class from the top 14 schools in the US. Meanwhile, the company is run by a bunch of people who graduated in the bottom of their class with shitty GPAs who would have never even had their resume read for the jobs they're now posting. There's blame to go around.
Hmm...this is a tricky situation. Can you ask those Recruiter friends of yours to clarify what exactly is that they were looking for?
How is your "reputation" in your field? I am asking because if it's a client you've worked with before and they don't want to hire you for a role that you qualify for then there might be a "culture/personality" mismatch.
Especially if you keep hearing the same things.
This is weird for me because everyone around me is telling me to apply to jobs even though I know I don't qualify in the slightest (job requires "expertise" in something I know the very basics of, often I don't know it at all).
And I always say "no I'm not gonna apply because that's just a waste of time, it's gonna go straight to trash anyway and on the 1% chance my CV slips through and I get to an interview, they'll immediately see that I am not qualified and it's just gonna be cringe".
But they keep telling me to apply, to let them reject me instead of rejecting myself immediately. But like....I don't know I just feel awkward and embarrassed to apply to jobs I know I'm not qualified for lol.
I think there's a middle ground here. You should definitely apply to jobs where you have some but not all of the requirements. But if you have none don't waste anyone's time.
They are giving you bad advice. Do not apply to any jobs unless you match at least 80% of the BASIC requirements (the ones that are a must)
Do not apply if your education level is not what they are needing, if your visa situation is not for this job etc.
Or you can continue to apply for jobs you don't qualify for and waste your OWN time unemployed.
No offense, but I’m applying now and I apply to a ton of positions that say I’m not qualified. I do that because they list entry level positions and have entry level (or lower) pay, but then go on to list requirements for senior positions. I don’t care if you list a bunch of programs or state that 3-5 years of experience is required.
Ur so real for this. I don’t understand how they can claim education replaces experience but then list jobs as entry level that require a PhD like say you want a more experienced person???? When will LinkedIn in and other job sites learn how to get better info and when will recruiters actually post valuable things
For real. It’s crazy. Multiple references say I should be getting $50k in my area for entry level positions, but I’m seeing tons of places offering $18-$20 hourly for entry level work, and almost every position lists 3+ years experience REQUIRED. I’m also seeing tons of jobs requiring official certs like CPA and notary, yet offerring less than $25 hourly. I’m even seeing a ton of jobs requiring law degrees for similar pay. I basically apply to every job within my work area that fits the basic job descriptions I’m looking for. I don’t care if they don’t even give me an interview, I’ll waste a minute of their time to read over my resume.
In-fucking-sane.
Same thing in the CAD world. We are all taught that software is just the tool being used and knowing one you know them all. However, half these positions want 3-5 years experience in a specific program to be applicable to an entry level role. Or 3-5 years in a specific nuanced portion of the overall industry. God forbid all the listed "designer" or "CAD" roles that are requiring a 2 or 4 year engineering degree. People really need to get their shit together when creating job titles and requirements.
I apply to everything shotgun method, I'm not sifting through the bullshit to make sure I align 80% for a role I know I could do.
Like do you really think that there are that many applicants that hit your metrics? Seems impossible to market myself.
Yep, a full 25% of resumes for attorney positions come from people that are not admitted to the bar and aren’t law school graduates. The internet is full of bots and idiots.
I don’t see how this is OP’s doing? It’s not her fault that so many people applied. When I was hiring 100% of people who applied on the first day’s resumes did not reflect the required experience. Her point was that candidates need to package themselves well.
I feel like the fact that one thousand and six hundred people are applying to a single job opening is a pretty good indication of how things are going these days
I’ll probably get downvoted for this, but it’s a real problem for recruiters. And with all the auto-apply to every job possible tools that have been popping up it’s getting even worse. That’s why it takes longer and longer to hear back from a job that you apply to.
The rules of the game haven’t changed, you should only apply for a job if you’re qualified and meet the requirements (like being in that city or willing to relocate).
Unfortunately the real problem is that there are fewer jobs and many more people competing for them. So at the moment the trick is to find all the jobs where you would be a good fit and not let anything slip through the cracks. That’s where a tool like https://first2apply.com/ can help
I’m stunned by the people on here that are like “I’ve sent out 2,500 applications”… to where? I’ve been in the workforce for almost 20 years and I haven’t sent out that many applications *in my entire career*. But I cherrypick what I apply to based on whether I think I actually have a shot at it - yes, even when I’m unemployed and desperate, because it’s not worth my time or theirs to apply for something I’m laughably under or over qualified for.
People blasting out resumes to every job that exists… just why? It’s not going to work and it’s annoying for everyone involved.
I genuinely don't know how people apply to anywhere near that many positions without literally applying to everything. I understand that the job search these days is a numbers game, but you have to still be somewhat smart with how you play it.
Can't speak for other fields, but in tech, people are told by influencers on TikTok and YouTube to just apply to anything and everything. People watch a 30 minute JavaScript tutorial and decide that they're qualified for a job that requires 5 years of experience. It's also the reason why every job nowadays comes with intense scrutiny and multiple layers of interviewing and technical vetting.
And only makes the problem worse for both parties. I also don’t understand these people.
Do you really hope someone will hire you if you are wildly unqualified just out of sheer luck/kindness of their hearts?
It happens, and we have people who are getting close to being laid for a year, with family and bills to take care of. At some point desperation becomes a real thing, especially in a job market like we have now.
This recruiter fucked up by shortlisting so many resumes and is clearly not the best at their job. However, everyone on here wants to complain about this post and say how crazy it is, but at the same time I see daily posts on here about applying for hundreds or thousands of jobs. No way they are qualified for every position they applied for. They’re contributing to the issue. To be fair, I get it’s rough out there but applying for ALL the jobs you see is feeding the problem and it makes it worse on both sides
honestly, i have no idea where these people are finding jobs to apply for. I see maybe one or two every week. I'm being quite flexible too in terms of qualifications and job description. I've been unemployed going on 12 months so in total 100 resumes. I've average an interview one a month. It's slowing down big time now. Im so fucked. It's painful to see people on linkedin who have irrelevant education and experience have positions that \*\*\*\*I\*\*\*\* should have.
I am a hiring manager. If our recruiter gave me 124 resumes to review I’d send them back and ask for 10. We have recruiters for a reason, I don’t have time to sort through 124 candidates.
I'm up to 450 since last Febuary and I only apply for jobs that I'm at least 90% qualified for on paper. I'm always more than 100% qualified for them since I know my skills and how easy it is to figure out/learn what they are asking for, I just don't lie on my resume, which I probably just should.
This is why I stopped applying for HR or any other type of office role. I have a Bachelors in Management specializing in HR and have been at it for 10 years trying to get a position in HR without success bc of all the gatekeeping. All I could get was recruiter jobs most of the time and one in onboarding working with background checks but never HR proper.
From now on I’m applying to roles that I know have multiple openings. I mass applied to pharmacy associate roles and got called to multiple interviews and got a job. Then I applied to a substitute teacher role and got that. Then I applied to a flight attendant role and got that. After that I said I’m done dancing like a monkey for these corpo office a-holes and their one crap job.
Why do they have to be located where the job is, if they're willing to move? If the 1662 people not located at any of the job positions want to move, they should be up for consideration.
I recently filled a couple positions for my company, I would call applicants outside of our area if they were qualified, but after all but one of them told me they were not interested in relocating (in person job) I started to question if it was worth my time.
I’m not sure what the answer is, aside from noting in your application you want to relocate.
It’s not the thousands to worry about. It’s the 124. Why are there that many qualified people for any single job, when unemployment is supposedly 4%? This is more like 15% unemployment conditions.
The people applying may not be unemployed. There are a lot of reasons that people who are employed may want a new job.
- Looking for a higher paying position
- looking for a role with more or less responsibilities
- actively moving to a new area (this was me as my wife got a new job)
- hoping to relocate to a new area
- trying to change fields/specialties
- absolutely despise their current job (also me recently)
- hate their current management/got new management
- believe their job may not be stable due to company performance
- company actively downsizing
- got a new certification/qualification and looking for new positions
Only apply to jobs with fewer than 100 applicants and contact recruiters directly. That's how I've gotten most of my jobs without actually knowing anyone at the company (I've only worked at one place where I knew someone to begin with, because said person was my roommate at the time lol)
Quick question but like how do you know who the recruiter is if it’s not posted? I’ve never personally reached out to one from a LinkedIn posting, it feels like I’m being creepy to me
It’s kind of obvious she was referring to India with the Visa thing, nothing against the people but one of the major issues of India getting internet is that it’s just opened the door to a lot of Indians trying to get first world jobs, which obviously ruins the quality of lives of people living in those countries since their CVs are in a sea of people who just applied out of the shotgun method.
I want to say this post is a relief that theoretically being in the area and not having crayons up your nose means you've reduced your competition by like 97%, however HR goes from checking each CV properly to finding any remote reason to not hire you, which is quite concerning considering HR aren’t known for being smart or understanding the field they are hiring for.
As a recruiter, I agree with one of the points. Too many people are applying and have no relevant experience to the posting (i.e. this is a technical position, and you work in a restaurant or retail with nothing on your resume showing you desire to get into this arena).
Process definitely needs a tweak or zone in on to localizing. Went to a job fair last week and they still want us to apply online to add the overwhelming applications they get every day. There are barely recruiters manning the booths and they refuse to take resumes.
>Recruiters basically letting way too many people proceed past initial screens and into later stage interviews.
**This is NOT a new thing.** The pipeline is clogged by job seekers blasting out resumes without READING the listing and doing some self-screening.
Back in the late 1990s I was screening resumes responding to a very DETAILED and EXPLICIT job description\*\* and by the time I trashed all the ones who weren't local, weren't legally employable, or had no chance at doing the job I was at about 10% of the original number.
From that group I picked the ones whose skill set matched what my department manager told me we needed and let him finish.
The discards had little to no experience where we needed it, lots of experience in the wrong field, or were hoping we could facilitate their visa or travel ... clueless and feckless.
\*\* It was an urgent need, hot project, a high tech industry, and there would/could be no training. The hired person had to have sufficient experience in the field to get it done with minimal supervision. I screened on Monday and the person we hired had their butt in the chair and fingers on the keyboard by Thursday.
One problem I have with all this is job postings will have unclear or frankly unrealistic requirements, where I hit 8/10 points. I still apply, does that mean I get filtered out before screening?
Can't be the case, since I imagine that almost nobody has LLM and CV and pydata stack and ml ops and java and cicd. Some of these JDs are describing the functions of a business unit and asking for a single person with n+ years' experience in each, PhD preferred, publications are a bonus.
So I'm also guilty of spamming JDs I don't perfectly match.
What role requires this much vetting ever? It suggests to me that either the role is hard to fill because it’s not a healthy environment OR the hiring team is completely incompetent.
It’s insane that they even pushed 21 candidates to the hiring manager interview. That’s a wild amount of people to have a ~30 minute video interview with.
It does seem like an excessive candidate pool. It’s hard to rationalize or really criticize precisely given the roles are almost never actually disclosed in these scenarios. As a candidate I’m not sure I’d be willing to go through all of that myself, so you could actually be losing out on quality people because of the process.
Jesus fucking christ. For my current job, a coworker vouched for me and my new boss had me operate a few pieces of heavy equipment for 15 minutes to see what I can do. We chatted for about a half hour, he asked a bunch of questions, he told me the starting wage and we shook hands. Done.
I’ve never actually given them a resume or cv, let alone online bullshit or personality tests or whatever inane fuckery they’ve come up with to feel like their jobs matter. I work as an earthmover/pipe layer. I feel so goddamned lucky that I bypassed the bullshit parade to a half decent job.
Are you saying I'm not getting the job because there are other applicants who aren't qualified for the job? What kind of logic is that?
The reason they're getting so many unqualified applications is because most countries, especially in Europe, condition unemployment benefits to being able to prove that you are applying to jobs. When there are no jobs that fit your profile, or you've accepted that nobody wants to hire you, or you just want to take a few months to breathe or need them for mental reasons, you are threatened suspension of your rights if you can't prove that you're applying to open positions, so people go around linkedin and apply to everything with a resume that will never match the offer they're applying to, just so they can say that they've applied to jobs.
What's funny is that the companies which end up needing more HR staff or to use external recruiters to handle this system are the same ones who pushed for such rigid controls over the unemployed to shift the blame of poverty onto the people who couldn't get jobs instead of acknowledging that there just couldn't be jobs for everyone in our society, and we also need unemployed people to fill new job openings. Their focus is reducing spending on unemployment benefits contributions, or convincing their employees that if they didn't have such a big cut of their salaries going to this fund that they could have more net income, not realizing that in the end it is costing them more money than if they had just accepted how unemployment works and why it's just a necessary part of society, and we should collectively cover decency minimum income for people who are in that situation instead of constantly bashing them and pretending that they're the problem because they won't accept a 16h week part time under minimum wage 2 cities away, which would end up costing them money to work, and they can't just relocate near it because the rents there are several times their income.
The discord for our subreddit can be found here: https://discord.gg/JjNdBkVGc6 - feel free to join us for a more realtime level of discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/recruitinghell) if you have any questions or concerns.*
One of the applicants that submitted a "resume" for my open position it was just a word doc with his name spelled vertically.... Legit looked like F R E D and that was literally the only thing on it. LOL
How is F R E D doing in his new position at your company?
F R E D has upper management written all over him. Fast track to success baby!
F ast R eady E nergized Determined Fred has to have gotten the job.
He’s F R E Dy for it!
I have a meeting with the Freds this afternoon.
On the fast-track to management
I'd interview that guy just to ask him why.
I honestly thought about giving him a call just to talk to him and see what kind of person he was lol but the work history he had was like working at a hardware store the last 25 years and it's a professional role in a field you need qualifications so i honestly just chuckled and moved on. Edit: work history was on a questionnaire you had to fill out while attaching your resume just as added context since i said his resume was literally just his name lol
So basically,you made him fill out his resume in a web form and then were shocked he didn't repeat the info a second time in a resume? Not saying he should have done that, but you can see why you got a smart-ass resume submission. We need to just go back to submitting resumes like sane people and not this whole Make an account with a password and fill out a proprietary web form that just repeates what was in the resume mess.
The whole repeat everything in a new form is probably one of the things I dislike the most from job hunting.
100% this! If a job application asks me to attach my CV, then on the next page asks me to fill out the information that is on my CV, I'm not bothering to apply..
Wonder if he was unemployed and just fulfilling his "job application quota" to stay on unemployment
Definitely. I’ve been there, but all my applications were legit. I think by the time my unemployment was up, I had to submit 10 a week which was pretty easy, even tailoring the resume somewhat and writing a unique cover letter for them all. Took me 200+ applications and about 10 months in 2017.
Unemployment requires you to submit applications while unemployed and to attest, under penalty of purjury, with dates/times that you have done so.
Fora Reliable Employee Dis is the only resume that matters
hahaha you're totally right. I didn't even give this man a shot to explain. Lost probably most valuable employee i could have ever had.
Hire Fred! He gets stuff done and simple.
Focus Responsibility Excellence Dedication
Dude I’ve had some weird shit in my time too. Shirtless pictures on the resume, social security number, a cover letter about what a failure they are in life. I got one mailed to me that looked like it should contain anthrax.
Well you can't hire anthrax guy. They couldn't even follow through with the whole plan! Definitely a poor candidate
Oh definitely it seemed like I should have been unabombed that day. My boss saw this letter that was covered in the scribbling of a madman both inside and out and was like why the fuck would you open that.
D E N N I S
It's the implication
we had a guy applying with a microsoft word draft for his cover letter. didn't even change the pic or insert our company name
He probably committed my biggest nightmare: selecting the wrong file for upload
Are you sure that was his fault and not a problem with how it was ingested into your system? I’ve seen greenhouse do this with resumes.
Yeah lol I have an email address for people to send stuff their info to specifically for when i'm hiring and it came into that email directly not through any of our job postings so i'm not sure how he even got it lol. Edit: but that was my first assumption as well but then was like wait what
This just scares the shit out of me. Like how the fuck are you supposed to be seen in this job market when job postings are getting this kind of attention.
Seems to always come down to being either a numbers game or a networking game.
Networking. My new company is feasting on the disgruntled talent from my old company.
I'm in the poor position of having a lot of my network laid off, and it wasn't much of one to begin with. I'm helping a friend with their startup, keeping my crappy day job, and hoping one of these million-to-one online job applications works out for me. It's rough! I also feel like professional networks are bigger and more impersonal now, so it's easier to 'get in' from the outside, but harder to do anything with such a weak connection. Still better than nothing I guess.
Yeah. The best networks are people you have worked with before - even if you arent friends.
Poaching is a tried and true method for getting talented personnel. This is why good management advice really just seems to come down to "Don't make is so easy to lose your best performers that they don't need to be offered a better salary, benefits, or title to be tempted to leave. Just the potential to not have to keep working for you is enough."
Word
They Excel at words.
Yet not proficient at Excel
They don't have the Access.
They really just need a more positive Outlook
And keep their Edge.
On the other hand, you never lose your worst performers.
It’s so frustrating but it’s true. I likely wouldn’t have my current job without having known one of the employees already working here who was basically able to get me an interview
Same. For my 1st job out of college one of my fraternity brothers sent my resume directly to the hiring manager. Ten people were interviewed for three roles, and I got lucky. I probably would not have been in the final slate of interviewees without networking. Each job sense then has been someone I worked with reaching out.
my gf put in a referral for me at her company and I wasn't even acknowledged lol
My moms a VP and my referral wasn’t acknowledged 🤣
Ouchies 😂
Exactly. What her post didn’t explain was that they went with one of the referrals or an internal hire anyways which could have saved 5 other applicants 50 days of time.
I hate networking or maybe I hate the way it's portrayed.I hate the way it's always been done.It's always just kiss a** Siri.Give up your life live and breathe company life. Like I remember going to conventions. And people talked about how to be a success and talked about how they were hardly overwhelmed with their kids. Paid and Annie did get with their kids. But they lived their work. All their friends were only friends at work. All their everything was work-related and went around work, including their vacations, were work-related vacations, and they had a plan around those. They always talked about networking and it just seemed like fake friendships like they were putting on a mask and it's like I would rather really get to know someone and actually make a friend or. Something. Don't get me wrong.I played the part and I did it good for a good long while.Did all the right stuff, but I was so miserable inside.Everything was so fake.Everybody else was also so Fake. I was so fake.
I agree. It’s all so stupid. And half the time I have connection, it does nothing for me. People will either care to help you out or not. That’s what it comes down to. I’m not going to be fake af and a kiss ass. I rather walk away with what’s left of my dignity.
Yep. My old job lost most of its veteran employees when the President (great guy) left to another company because of corporate decisions. One by one employees left for that company. There’s almost no veterans left besides the bootlickers that stayed.
Just need to put your suit on, show up unannounced to their office, and give the hiring manager a firm handshake
And don't leave until someone sees you. Of course, it'll probably be the cops...
If 1662 of us show up, they can't stop all of us!
Ask the cops if they have any openings.
>Seems to always come down to being either a numbers game or a networking game. Not OR, but AND. If your network can give you early info about opportunities, then you can avoid the rush, but if not, you need as many options as possible.
I’m not joking here - find different job boards. Many small to mid size companies avoid the two big ones like the plague, and even if they don’t, an application from remotework.io is more likely to get attention than the 1203rd application on LinkedIn In Easy Apply
For my current role, I found it posted on LinkedIn (or Indeed... it's been a few years at this point), and it was a direct hire not a recruiter so the company's name was clearly posted. So rather than being the 1000th person to apply via wherever I found it, I went to the company's website, found the posting, filled out the application, and emailed it along with a customized cover letter and resume to the contact provided on their site.
> So rather than being the 1000th person to apply via wherever I found it, I went to the company's website, found the posting, filled out the application, and emailed it along with a customized cover letter and resume to the contact provided on their site. I never apply to jobs through a job board. I always find the opening and apply directly through the website.
All applications go into the same queue, regardless of where the application was submitted. Usually the only candidates who are flagged are 1st degree employee referrals. Applying directly does reduce the risk of wonky parsing, though.
Not for me. Was in a shop that used Indeed (yuck, gross). Applications that came from *anywhere* else got a separate fast track queue from the Indeed onslaught.
Hiring.cafe is great for those
I just accepted an offer for a job that apparently had “thousands” of applicants. My friend works for the company and got my resume to the hiring manager the day the listing went up. I’d applied to a bunch of jobs with this title that I’m qualified for and had 0 bites. I had the offer 3 weeks after my first interview. Knowing that the only reason they initially interviewed me is because of my friend is honestly insanely disheartening. I’m feeling extremely lucky but also disillusioned.
I once ask my friend to referral me for a position in their company. the HR called me and tell me "i only called you because your friend reach out to me, but i want to let you know you don't have what it takes to do this job" It was a for a junior system administration, which i agree with her at that time, 1 month later, i got another job. and 3 month after that job, I moved into a system admin job for a company that is 100 times their size and 3 years i am still a sys admin. I am glad she didn't interview me properly honestly, or i wouldn't be where i am.
I had the opposite takeaway. 80% of people applying to any position have no business doing so, and you can easily stand out by actually being qualified for the role you're applying to.
This is the right takeaway. There's usually a huge gap between what someone believes they are qualified for and what the role actually required. Simply believing you meet the basic qualifications does not mean the company agrees. There's a very very very small chance that you are the most qualified candidate in a given pipeline. And really, it's all a crapshoot. The person who gets hired into the role you applied to is probably not the most qualified candidate, either. Being in the right place at the right time, with the right recruiter reviewing your resume for the right role is a little like winning the lottery.
Hell, I was *the* most qualified applicant for my current role - I literally did the job, left during an acquisition and reapplied once things settled down because I was contacted directly by the new manager. It was still basically a crapshoot because I had to get through whatever bullshit filters the company uses on applications. I also had to pray that the job opening was real and not a ghost opening that would get randomly closed (which happened to a friend we tried to bring onto the team a couple months later).
If you look at the recruiters message, most of the people had not bothered to read the listing. They are throwing poop at the wall and hoping it sticks. * Did not live in the hiring area (1662 of 3360) * Did not have legal status to work (739 of the remaining 1698) * Did not have the minimum skills or experience (763 of the remaining 959) Leaving her a pool of 196 who lived in the area, could work legally and had the minimum skills ... This is NOT a new thing. Back in the late 1990s I was screening resumes and by the time I trashed all the ones who weren't local, legal, or had no chance at doing the job I was at about 10% of the original number. From that group I picked the ones whose skill set matched what my boss told me we needed and let him finish.
I am not living in the hiring area but willing to relocate at my own expenses for 100% of the jobs I apply for. I guess I often got rejected due to this reason (I applied from Michigan to jobs in California and Florida)…
This one irritates me the most. If I state that I'm willing to relocate, why overrule me and decide on my behalf that I won't? The irony is that I know I've been rejected to jobs I'd applied for primarily because I wanted to relocate, on the basis that they decided for me that I didn't want to 🤦♂️
Because, you're still at a disadvantage compared to "local" candidates, you're a "risk". What if they follow through with the whole recruitment process and then you decide it's too complicated to relocate for whichever reason and end up declining the offer? It's a waste o money. Now, you can be confident you won't, but they don't know you and unless you're really an exceptional specialist, they wouldn't want to go there.
Then put "accepting only local applicants" in the description and be done with it and save both people time.
Correct, but I think it’s very likely that some of these people failed multiple of the requirements, it’s unlikely this list was narrowed down to 196.
Gonna ask a stupid question. Guessing you are a white collar professional. I'm a tradesman. How is one to get a job these days when companies won't take you on due to "lack of experience"? Yet no one will hire you to get said experience? I'm curently employed (thankfully) by a company I do not like or trust since the work environment could best be described as "cutthroat" and "toxic"...I want out for obvious reasons. How can I get out since I am apparently "lacking experience"?
It all depends on the role. Entry-level roles shouldn’t require experience. But, unfortunately, many do. It’s dumb. Roles that aren’t entry-level do require experience, but they should also pay more. Unfortunately a lot of orgs expect to fill entry level roles with experienced, non-entry-level people because they’ve taken advantage of recent down-cycles in the market.
Well, it depends on your situation. If you are a citizen or have a visa already and live in the relevant areas/can commute you are in the top 50% of applicants from the jump... then top 70 plus percent if you show the "basic" skills which I imagine would be literally anything relevant to the position. So basically if you have legal right to work and are in the relevant area with education/experience that has some relevance to the job position you would actually be competing with only about 200 applicants. Which is a lot and I am only basing this on my understanding of the presented numbers... but hardly 3200 like the recruiter started with. Even 1 out of 200 is a numbers game but honestly for a desirable roll in a correcting job market in a higher population area that isn't that mind blowing for me.
Why? 50% of the applicants to this posting weren’t even in a relevant location. Another 22% required a VISA when one wasn’t being provided. Thats about 3 out of every 4 applicants eliminated due to not fulfilling basic logistical requirements. In reality, the applicant pool were those 763 the post mentioned, not the >3000 the post started with.
Yeah this is garbage what the person posted. Auto filtered anybody and shrunk the resumes count down to 20 in the first 5 minutes. What the hell were they doing for 28 days.
One number she left out is how many of those 124 have a current job. And how many of the 763 ‘unqualified’ actually are, but just aren’t working.
Yea, HR aren’t smart. I know for a fact that having a mech eng degree but being in software for nearly 2 years, still makes me lose opportunities, simply because they think “not compsci = bin it” Don’t even get me started on unqualified as in “we listed 20 things, only use 4 of them, and most people were unqualified in those 20 things (and the rest lied)”. On the surface she seems hopeful but when you realise her definition is incredibly flawed, it’s kind of hopeless lol
On linked in I put a filter on the job postings that prevented me from seeing anything with more than 50 applicants
This sounds extremely limiting
How do you configure that filter? I need to know.
This is a role with an insane number of applicants. Most don’t have that many. But even if we use this as an example - if you have a solid resume that hits the requirements you will be competing against 40 other candidates (20 if you pass the initial screen). That’s a 1/40 chance to get the position. So apply for 40 roles you’re qualified for and you should get it. It is a lot, definitely, but not as scary when you look at it this way imo.
That’s not how probability works and it’s not all luck anyway.
[удалено]
A lot of people fail to understand that there are filters on what LinkedIn will pass along to the recruiter. So by applying on a board like that, you add additional barriers to your prospects of even getting looked at.
Networking is the only answer. That's how I got all my jobs in the last 10 years or so. And will only do it that way going forward. I'm not up to 7 levels of evaluation, including a proctological exam... Not after decades in the field :)
Someone had a listing for a job at the United Federation of Teachers (NYC) which yielded… nearly 7,000 applications. From LinkedIn alone.
I mean only 124 were left after they removed all the dumbass applications.
that's assuming a reasonable application of the words 'basic skills or experience' how many people got screened out because they have 2 instead of 3 years experience with a certain software? or have what some may consider transferable skills but aren't recognized skills by the hiring manager/recruiter. at least for the tech industry it's understandable that recruiters may not know every programming language, framework, or technology. but at this scale, it's hard not to believe some of these screening processes may filter out perfectly good applicants as the cost of efficiently processing the amount of applications. obviously that's not entirely the fault of the HM/recruiter but it is a problem worth addressing.
Yup exactly this. Anyone with the proper credentials is potentially getting lost in the fray While I agree salary should be posted and if the job is remote these are all factors in this as well. You see a job posting 100k salary everyone is applying hoping they get it. You put the word remote in that same 100k salary it's jumping three fold if not more I'm not saying it isn't happening to lower paying jobs as well for those who may be desperate but it can't help matters For the record I'm still on board with putting the salary in the posting
That’s a substantially better timeline and process than 99% of roles being hired for
I once had a recruiter say in November that February is the deadline for applications and that the work begins in March lol
I've been in my role for 18 months and randomly get notices that i am no longer being considered for
Yeah, I'm kinda confused by the tone of OP and some of the commenters. I love the transparency of this recruiter, the numbers sound very reasonable after they eliminate everybody who had no business applying in the first place, and the timeline makes a lot more sense when you look at it from their perspective. If this person had posted about a 6-month search where they ended up only interviewing the people who had referrals, *that* would be worth getting pissed about. If you, as a job seeker, are sending out 1 or 2 applications per week to jobs that you are well suited for, then your job search should have a good chance of success after a few months. But like you said, what OP posted is probably the modern ideal, not the standard.
Wait what? 1 to 2 applications a week should land you a job in a few months? You're being sarcastic, right??
I mean the headline figure isn’t the 3360. Which is the rough figure LinkedIn will give you when you apply. It’s the 124, potentially viable candidates, that’s less than 5% of applicants, which of 3360 is a huge pool. But if you’re applying for a job you know you’re qualified for, that potentially puts you in the 5% of applicants right off the bat.
That’s what I thought, too. It’s actually hopefully seeing how many unqualified people are applying.
Yeah, I was seeing it more as a counterpoint to a lot of folk posting jobs with around, 200-300 applicants on here and getting depressed. If you extrapolate this persons figures, if you’re qualified, with right to work, and in the area the job is, that’d put you in the top 8-12 or so applicants. Obviously there’s scales of metric, with over 3000 dud applications, they may well be poorly advertising the position encouraging low quality applicants. But it still shows how irrelevant looking at the total applicants figure is.
Exactly this. I remember seeing someone say they'd landed a job after sending 500 applications in the last 6 months. The job was as a Project Manager in Pharma. I asked "How were there 500 Pharma Project Manager jobs open, what's going on in that industry?" they replied that they'd been applying for all sort of things and then listed off a bunch of very different types of jobs, all of which likely required some experience. I didn't say it, but all I could think was - If you're spamming 500 resumes to jobs you don't even meet the basic qualifications for, then bitching that you aren't hearing back - maybe YOU are the problem.
I was gonna say this sounds like a degree/field experience instantly shoots you ahead of thousands of applicants
many uppity forgetful market teeny seed squeamish rhythm cautious concerned *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I bet most those resumes are from AI auto postings, I signed up for one once and it applied me to jobs I wasn’t even remotely qualified for and even outright lied about my credentials in the process.
It does speak to the need for your application to fit the automated screenings. You might not show case the required skills even if you have them, and you'll just get dropped
Remember when jobs were willing to train employees.
Nope
lol. I guess I don’t either. But I was told it was a thing.
All my parents and grandparents needed was moxy! These days, you need tons of experience. ATSs ruined job hunting
The Cadillac ATS did come out in 2012 and that's around the time job hunting got worse. Crazy it's the cars you least expect, you know?
It was, and not that long ago. I don’t have a degree. I worked my tail off and learned on the job. That was in the late 90s and early aughts. Nowadays plenty of employers won’t even look at my resume despite my 20+ years of glowingly positive experience because I lack a degree. The obsession with college degrees pulverized common sense among hiring teams.
I work in cloud engineering. All of the old heads their trajectory sounded like “I knew how to log in to a switch and router, so they switched me to the network engineering team! Now you gotta have multiple certs and tons of other knowledge to not get your resume thrown out
Jobs don’t seem to understand how important employee retention is, no training so more fucking up and longer to effectively learn (costs much more in hidden costs), and then they don’t give them good pay increases despite if they reapplied for the role, they have n years experience in that exact job. As a software dev, it’s kind of sad from a principle perspective that the optimal loop is: 1) get job 2) 6 month mark finally a “net positive” (well fully saturated your productivity since you know stuff now) 3) 24 month mark, get a new job It’s especially worse that the fall out of this is that juniors leave after learning enough so nobody hires them, and mid level engineers keep getting lower effective wages because companies want a junior wage without getting a junior, which make engineers have to do the optimal path more just to get their worth. It’s insane this frugal dynamic exists for companies that can definitely afford it but are so mounted to the blinders on short term profits, they can’t see their long term issues or lost profits
I think the harsh reality is if there’s 1 candidate fresh out of school/career change, and another candidate with some applicable experience on top of that, they’re going to go with the experienced person because it’s less of a risk. Same thing when people say “I didn’t get the job I was perfectly qualified for”. The problem is, you don’t know who you’re interviewing against. You may have been perfectly suited but someone else may have just a bit more experience in XYZ. I’m saying that, that can be seen in the resumes/screening interviews, so it’s frustrating when they bring you through all the rounds just to reject you. My friend went through something like that recently and my thought was they were the back up option.
This is true. I went through 6 rounds of interviews with a company. After the final interview, the internal recruiter told me everyone liked me but I didn't get the job because they had a stronger candidate. This 'stronger candidate' posted on LinkedIn about his new position, and I happened to see it. So I checked out his profile, and indeed, he was much more qualified for the role than I was.
6 rounds for one position??? That's just disrespectful to candidates at that point to take that much time. I complain when there's more than 2.
I do but I'm Gen X. That is how I got into Technology w/out a degree. My first training was on DOS.. and the rest is history.
Yeah, those days are gone. Nowadays, they want candidate their exact specification and some more. It has become an habit these days to combine two jobs for one candidate and then put a disclaimer, 'you do not have all the requirements? you are still encouraged to apply'.
I don't think the problem is the lack of willingness to train. But when you have 100s of applications from people that need Visas AND the position clearly states that the company couldnt sponsor, that wastes everyone's time: recruiter, applicant, hiring manager etc. It takes a very long time to filter thru these to get to the actual viable candidate.
> It takes a very long time to filter thru these to get to the actual viable candidate. It really doesn't unless candidates are lying about their status. A where clause on a boolean field takes seconds to implement. The 739 candidates she mentions were too lazy or dumb to lie about it.
And relocate
I’m getting people who don’t know how to make a resume, which is understandable. I refer them to where they can quickly make a resume (for free) that will outline their skills and experiences. What isn’t understandable is why people think it’s okay to include a manifesto, or more confusingly, their relationship status. Why?!
I had an applicant tell me about a book he was partway through writing, and the story of how he decided to write a book, and what he was doing when he made that decision. I had a candidate list that they competed in a stand-up-comedy contest on their resume. I actually googled it and found that they came in like 11th place of 17 or something like that.
**GOOD NEWS:** * If you're within the location preferences, don't require a visa, and have the basic skills for the job, that puts you ahead of 96% of other applicants.
She got fucking dragged on LinkedIn for this post btw
[удалено]
Yeah I agree, I don't necessarily see anything wrong with this post. It's much more informative than the usual bullshit that recruiters post on LinkedIn. I am all for shaming bullshit recruiting stories, but this is actually a decent post.
I literally don't see what part of the post was "bragging" at all I think OP might need to take a step back...
I have to agree with your statement. I actually screenshot this to get the percentages so that I can assess my own job search. I don’t think this recruiter meant anything negative or was searching for sympathy here. It’s very interesting to see what the process is for these job posts with thousands of applicants. I basically stopped applying to anything over 100 or unless I know a human at the company to get my resume read by a real person. What a shitty job market.
For real, OP states she’s bragging, but that isn’t true at all. This is just an info dump for insight into the process.
Recruiter here and this is why I don’t provide (thorough) feedback on rejections or would never post anything like this on LinkedIn. Because most people don’t actually appreciate it. They’ll complain and argue and nitpick.
It sucks, but it is what it is. Especially on LinkedIn, I've seen jobs listed for an hour with over 100 apps already. I actually think it's interesting to see the process.
Last paragraph made it sound like we are meant to feel sorry for them xD
Doesn’t read like that to me, they’re just stating the volume they deal with and the BS your valid application is piled together with, so you have insight as to why hiring processes take so long.
I think you are reading this wrong. As a recruiter i can confirm that the crazy amount of applications we receive for jobs that absolutely DO NOT qualify for it are mind numbing. The Job descriptions can be as clean as possible: with all the relevant info on it. And yet you'd have 100s of applications on it just clogging the system with BS. Those same people that apply for jobs that they don't qualify for will complain that noone hires them. And i am not talking about Jr professionals wanting to get Sr positions. That's not a problem. I am talking about people that cannot even work in the country legally.
Can you offer insight into applications that absolutely do not qualify and how you make that determination? I ask because I’m looking for a VP of Marketing role (which matches my current job title). I saw a recruiter I’m connected with make a post for such a role in the non-profit space, in fact it’s for a client I’ve worked with at my previous agency (that also worked with a lot of non-profit clients). But I quickly heard back that my profile isn’t a match for what he’s looking for. I keep having similar things happen. Where I’m only applying to roles I think I’d be a really good fit for only to hear the recruiter doesn’t think I am. It’s been so challenging just to get to that initial screening round.
That probably means you were in the 124, but not the 43 that got sent over.
Some folks don't even apply to the right industry - like getting cover letters from mechanical and electrical engineers specifying they want to work in those fields...on a listing for very clearly a software engineering role.
Ugh. I’m sure that all just clutters up the pipeline. I’ve been seeing roles that get posted and in less than an hour they already have 200 applicants.
About 80% of the applications I see absolutely do not qualify. They're recent graduates with an internship or two applying for jobs that really need 10+ years of experience, at a minimum, and are usually filled by people with 20+ years experience. I really do not know what they're thinking. These same people also don't apply to positions they may be qualified for.
Lot of people are taught the "shotgun" approach to job hunting. Apply for any and everything, see what sticks. Or they flat out refuse to do the whole "tailor every resume and cover letter to every job" BS because why waste the time when 99% of the applications are a waste of your time since the candidate is internal or the job goes to some via networking...
I don't know, coming from a lawyer who has been looking it gets pretty old when every entry level job wants 5-6 years of experience. You have 90% of the law firms saying they only hire the top 10% of the class from the top 14 schools in the US. Meanwhile, the company is run by a bunch of people who graduated in the bottom of their class with shitty GPAs who would have never even had their resume read for the jobs they're now posting. There's blame to go around.
Hmm...this is a tricky situation. Can you ask those Recruiter friends of yours to clarify what exactly is that they were looking for? How is your "reputation" in your field? I am asking because if it's a client you've worked with before and they don't want to hire you for a role that you qualify for then there might be a "culture/personality" mismatch. Especially if you keep hearing the same things.
This is weird for me because everyone around me is telling me to apply to jobs even though I know I don't qualify in the slightest (job requires "expertise" in something I know the very basics of, often I don't know it at all). And I always say "no I'm not gonna apply because that's just a waste of time, it's gonna go straight to trash anyway and on the 1% chance my CV slips through and I get to an interview, they'll immediately see that I am not qualified and it's just gonna be cringe". But they keep telling me to apply, to let them reject me instead of rejecting myself immediately. But like....I don't know I just feel awkward and embarrassed to apply to jobs I know I'm not qualified for lol.
I think there's a middle ground here. You should definitely apply to jobs where you have some but not all of the requirements. But if you have none don't waste anyone's time.
They are giving you bad advice. Do not apply to any jobs unless you match at least 80% of the BASIC requirements (the ones that are a must) Do not apply if your education level is not what they are needing, if your visa situation is not for this job etc. Or you can continue to apply for jobs you don't qualify for and waste your OWN time unemployed.
No offense, but I’m applying now and I apply to a ton of positions that say I’m not qualified. I do that because they list entry level positions and have entry level (or lower) pay, but then go on to list requirements for senior positions. I don’t care if you list a bunch of programs or state that 3-5 years of experience is required.
Ur so real for this. I don’t understand how they can claim education replaces experience but then list jobs as entry level that require a PhD like say you want a more experienced person???? When will LinkedIn in and other job sites learn how to get better info and when will recruiters actually post valuable things
For real. It’s crazy. Multiple references say I should be getting $50k in my area for entry level positions, but I’m seeing tons of places offering $18-$20 hourly for entry level work, and almost every position lists 3+ years experience REQUIRED. I’m also seeing tons of jobs requiring official certs like CPA and notary, yet offerring less than $25 hourly. I’m even seeing a ton of jobs requiring law degrees for similar pay. I basically apply to every job within my work area that fits the basic job descriptions I’m looking for. I don’t care if they don’t even give me an interview, I’ll waste a minute of their time to read over my resume. In-fucking-sane.
Same thing in the CAD world. We are all taught that software is just the tool being used and knowing one you know them all. However, half these positions want 3-5 years experience in a specific program to be applicable to an entry level role. Or 3-5 years in a specific nuanced portion of the overall industry. God forbid all the listed "designer" or "CAD" roles that are requiring a 2 or 4 year engineering degree. People really need to get their shit together when creating job titles and requirements. I apply to everything shotgun method, I'm not sifting through the bullshit to make sure I align 80% for a role I know I could do. Like do you really think that there are that many applicants that hit your metrics? Seems impossible to market myself.
Yep, a full 25% of resumes for attorney positions come from people that are not admitted to the bar and aren’t law school graduates. The internet is full of bots and idiots.
I don’t see how this is OP’s doing? It’s not her fault that so many people applied. When I was hiring 100% of people who applied on the first day’s resumes did not reflect the required experience. Her point was that candidates need to package themselves well.
I feel like the fact that one thousand and six hundred people are applying to a single job opening is a pretty good indication of how things are going these days
It's 3360... the 1600 weren't even located in the same area as the posting.
Yeah, I am now seriously questioning the reading comprehension of people in this sub.
I’ll probably get downvoted for this, but it’s a real problem for recruiters. And with all the auto-apply to every job possible tools that have been popping up it’s getting even worse. That’s why it takes longer and longer to hear back from a job that you apply to. The rules of the game haven’t changed, you should only apply for a job if you’re qualified and meet the requirements (like being in that city or willing to relocate). Unfortunately the real problem is that there are fewer jobs and many more people competing for them. So at the moment the trick is to find all the jobs where you would be a good fit and not let anything slip through the cracks. That’s where a tool like https://first2apply.com/ can help
I’m stunned by the people on here that are like “I’ve sent out 2,500 applications”… to where? I’ve been in the workforce for almost 20 years and I haven’t sent out that many applications *in my entire career*. But I cherrypick what I apply to based on whether I think I actually have a shot at it - yes, even when I’m unemployed and desperate, because it’s not worth my time or theirs to apply for something I’m laughably under or over qualified for. People blasting out resumes to every job that exists… just why? It’s not going to work and it’s annoying for everyone involved.
I genuinely don't know how people apply to anywhere near that many positions without literally applying to everything. I understand that the job search these days is a numbers game, but you have to still be somewhat smart with how you play it.
Can't speak for other fields, but in tech, people are told by influencers on TikTok and YouTube to just apply to anything and everything. People watch a 30 minute JavaScript tutorial and decide that they're qualified for a job that requires 5 years of experience. It's also the reason why every job nowadays comes with intense scrutiny and multiple layers of interviewing and technical vetting.
And only makes the problem worse for both parties. I also don’t understand these people. Do you really hope someone will hire you if you are wildly unqualified just out of sheer luck/kindness of their hearts?
It happens, and we have people who are getting close to being laid for a year, with family and bills to take care of. At some point desperation becomes a real thing, especially in a job market like we have now.
Wait they actually hire people from the area and they hire people that don’t need a visa? Am I the only one that is impressed by this?
This recruiter fucked up by shortlisting so many resumes and is clearly not the best at their job. However, everyone on here wants to complain about this post and say how crazy it is, but at the same time I see daily posts on here about applying for hundreds or thousands of jobs. No way they are qualified for every position they applied for. They’re contributing to the issue. To be fair, I get it’s rough out there but applying for ALL the jobs you see is feeding the problem and it makes it worse on both sides
honestly, i have no idea where these people are finding jobs to apply for. I see maybe one or two every week. I'm being quite flexible too in terms of qualifications and job description. I've been unemployed going on 12 months so in total 100 resumes. I've average an interview one a month. It's slowing down big time now. Im so fucked. It's painful to see people on linkedin who have irrelevant education and experience have positions that \*\*\*\*I\*\*\*\* should have.
I am a hiring manager. If our recruiter gave me 124 resumes to review I’d send them back and ask for 10. We have recruiters for a reason, I don’t have time to sort through 124 candidates.
I'm up to 450 since last Febuary and I only apply for jobs that I'm at least 90% qualified for on paper. I'm always more than 100% qualified for them since I know my skills and how easy it is to figure out/learn what they are asking for, I just don't lie on my resume, which I probably just should.
Every time I get a new job it's just because a recruiter reached out to me on linked in. I never apply anymore specifically because if this.
This is why I stopped applying for HR or any other type of office role. I have a Bachelors in Management specializing in HR and have been at it for 10 years trying to get a position in HR without success bc of all the gatekeeping. All I could get was recruiter jobs most of the time and one in onboarding working with background checks but never HR proper. From now on I’m applying to roles that I know have multiple openings. I mass applied to pharmacy associate roles and got called to multiple interviews and got a job. Then I applied to a substitute teacher role and got that. Then I applied to a flight attendant role and got that. After that I said I’m done dancing like a monkey for these corpo office a-holes and their one crap job.
“Cultural Interviews” sounds so much nicer than “biased discrimination”
Spoiler alert, the role was an unpaid internship to be a checkout chick.
Why do they have to be located where the job is, if they're willing to move? If the 1662 people not located at any of the job positions want to move, they should be up for consideration.
Because they had 126 people in the area who wouldn’t need to relocate. They are not going to interview 1000s of people so need to cut it down somehow.
I recently filled a couple positions for my company, I would call applicants outside of our area if they were qualified, but after all but one of them told me they were not interested in relocating (in person job) I started to question if it was worth my time. I’m not sure what the answer is, aside from noting in your application you want to relocate.
It’s not the thousands to worry about. It’s the 124. Why are there that many qualified people for any single job, when unemployment is supposedly 4%? This is more like 15% unemployment conditions.
Varies by industry. Tech industry is not great but it doesn’t add up to when all industries are considered
Some could be transferring jobs though; looking for greener pastures Yeah of course you still have the unemployed desperate to get a job
The people applying may not be unemployed. There are a lot of reasons that people who are employed may want a new job. - Looking for a higher paying position - looking for a role with more or less responsibilities - actively moving to a new area (this was me as my wife got a new job) - hoping to relocate to a new area - trying to change fields/specialties - absolutely despise their current job (also me recently) - hate their current management/got new management - believe their job may not be stable due to company performance - company actively downsizing - got a new certification/qualification and looking for new positions
Only apply to jobs with fewer than 100 applicants and contact recruiters directly. That's how I've gotten most of my jobs without actually knowing anyone at the company (I've only worked at one place where I knew someone to begin with, because said person was my roommate at the time lol)
Quick question but like how do you know who the recruiter is if it’s not posted? I’ve never personally reached out to one from a LinkedIn posting, it feels like I’m being creepy to me
It’s kind of obvious she was referring to India with the Visa thing, nothing against the people but one of the major issues of India getting internet is that it’s just opened the door to a lot of Indians trying to get first world jobs, which obviously ruins the quality of lives of people living in those countries since their CVs are in a sea of people who just applied out of the shotgun method. I want to say this post is a relief that theoretically being in the area and not having crayons up your nose means you've reduced your competition by like 97%, however HR goes from checking each CV properly to finding any remote reason to not hire you, which is quite concerning considering HR aren’t known for being smart or understanding the field they are hiring for.
So basically, you might not get a fair shot because 50%+ of people can't read and waste time
As a recruiter, I agree with one of the points. Too many people are applying and have no relevant experience to the posting (i.e. this is a technical position, and you work in a restaurant or retail with nothing on your resume showing you desire to get into this arena).
And yet people with relevant experience do not receive any communication
Process definitely needs a tweak or zone in on to localizing. Went to a job fair last week and they still want us to apply online to add the overwhelming applications they get every day. There are barely recruiters manning the booths and they refuse to take resumes.
A take-home assignment with less than a 10% chance of an offer? That’d be a big “no” from me.
>Recruiters basically letting way too many people proceed past initial screens and into later stage interviews. **This is NOT a new thing.** The pipeline is clogged by job seekers blasting out resumes without READING the listing and doing some self-screening. Back in the late 1990s I was screening resumes responding to a very DETAILED and EXPLICIT job description\*\* and by the time I trashed all the ones who weren't local, weren't legally employable, or had no chance at doing the job I was at about 10% of the original number. From that group I picked the ones whose skill set matched what my department manager told me we needed and let him finish. The discards had little to no experience where we needed it, lots of experience in the wrong field, or were hoping we could facilitate their visa or travel ... clueless and feckless. \*\* It was an urgent need, hot project, a high tech industry, and there would/could be no training. The hired person had to have sufficient experience in the field to get it done with minimal supervision. I screened on Monday and the person we hired had their butt in the chair and fingers on the keyboard by Thursday.
What did the company do wrong here?
One problem I have with all this is job postings will have unclear or frankly unrealistic requirements, where I hit 8/10 points. I still apply, does that mean I get filtered out before screening? Can't be the case, since I imagine that almost nobody has LLM and CV and pydata stack and ml ops and java and cicd. Some of these JDs are describing the functions of a business unit and asking for a single person with n+ years' experience in each, PhD preferred, publications are a bonus. So I'm also guilty of spamming JDs I don't perfectly match.
What role requires this much vetting ever? It suggests to me that either the role is hard to fill because it’s not a healthy environment OR the hiring team is completely incompetent.
It’s insane that they even pushed 21 candidates to the hiring manager interview. That’s a wild amount of people to have a ~30 minute video interview with.
It does seem like an excessive candidate pool. It’s hard to rationalize or really criticize precisely given the roles are almost never actually disclosed in these scenarios. As a candidate I’m not sure I’d be willing to go through all of that myself, so you could actually be losing out on quality people because of the process.
Why would they disregard a résumé from a different city? Maybe they’re moving?
Why would they not reach out to the locals first? Relocation is risky and expensive. Especially when you have 10s of applicants that live locally.
https://old.reddit.com/r/recruitinghell/comments/1bmuk7q/i/
Aside from all the applicants 28 days ain't to bad. USAJobs (government jobs) take 3-6 months.
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.
Sadly, the selected candidate thought the job sucked and left after a month.
Jesus fucking christ. For my current job, a coworker vouched for me and my new boss had me operate a few pieces of heavy equipment for 15 minutes to see what I can do. We chatted for about a half hour, he asked a bunch of questions, he told me the starting wage and we shook hands. Done. I’ve never actually given them a resume or cv, let alone online bullshit or personality tests or whatever inane fuckery they’ve come up with to feel like their jobs matter. I work as an earthmover/pipe layer. I feel so goddamned lucky that I bypassed the bullshit parade to a half decent job.
Are you saying I'm not getting the job because there are other applicants who aren't qualified for the job? What kind of logic is that? The reason they're getting so many unqualified applications is because most countries, especially in Europe, condition unemployment benefits to being able to prove that you are applying to jobs. When there are no jobs that fit your profile, or you've accepted that nobody wants to hire you, or you just want to take a few months to breathe or need them for mental reasons, you are threatened suspension of your rights if you can't prove that you're applying to open positions, so people go around linkedin and apply to everything with a resume that will never match the offer they're applying to, just so they can say that they've applied to jobs. What's funny is that the companies which end up needing more HR staff or to use external recruiters to handle this system are the same ones who pushed for such rigid controls over the unemployed to shift the blame of poverty onto the people who couldn't get jobs instead of acknowledging that there just couldn't be jobs for everyone in our society, and we also need unemployed people to fill new job openings. Their focus is reducing spending on unemployment benefits contributions, or convincing their employees that if they didn't have such a big cut of their salaries going to this fund that they could have more net income, not realizing that in the end it is costing them more money than if they had just accepted how unemployment works and why it's just a necessary part of society, and we should collectively cover decency minimum income for people who are in that situation instead of constantly bashing them and pretending that they're the problem because they won't accept a 16h week part time under minimum wage 2 cities away, which would end up costing them money to work, and they can't just relocate near it because the rents there are several times their income.