181–190 of 254 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is this proposed personality filter letting through and what is it filtering out?
IN: INT* OUT: anything not NT. I used to really like the MBTI-type stuff, but honestly think it's kinda nonsense now. You need a diverse team to be the best imho.
It's interesting how women seem to get interviews when matching fewer of the job requirements than men. Might be worth looking into whether this is due to gender discrimination in recruiting, or if women just apply to jobs that are a better fit, regardless of job requirements.
We are trying to hire at the moment and most of the resume we've received have been from men.... we'd like to interview some women....one of the good resume from a female is missing their email address.... in my book that would have been an automatic no but...since we need female candidates we tried calling them for an interview...
I don't understand why, if you have a bunch of resumes, do you seem to be holding out for some female applicants. Why not just interview the ones that seem like the best options and choose the best person for the job, regardless of their gender and how many qualified female candidates you have (or don't have)? You don't control who applies to the position.
Also, why would a missing email be an automatic no if they included another way to reach them using a standard method of communication? Or are you saying that they included no way of reaching them and you had to somehow locate a phone number for this person?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Now, it's led to a level of imposter syndrome I challenge that what you're feeling is imposter syndrome in this case. I posit it's the realization that at the next economic downturn, should you find yourself out of work and the landscape for being hired is more competitive, you are at a strategic disadvantage. Upward mobility into Director/VP roles is also quite limited without a degree, even though a degree in Com…
I don't particularly worry about that stuff, honestly. It's more of a feeling of "I don't feel like I deserve this level of success when I didn't go through the proper steps". I also don't have much interest in management/directing, though your statement probably applies to individual contributor roles.
Interest aside, being qualified for those types of roles would raise the bar for salaries for individual contributors because both types of positions are competing for the same finite labor pool.
> It's more of a feeling of "I don't feel like I deserve this level of success when I didn't go through the proper steps".
The question, IMO, is whether or not an employer will feel the same way about you at some point in the future.
I think this applies to those who have a degree as well. Ivy league school vs state school. #1 ranked school vs #2. It's all relative, I suppose.
It might be interesting to do a basic pre-processing of the JD to remove all such stop-phrases before evaluating the role being offered.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Great point. Having been on both sides of the hiring table, I can tell you that the candidate has no idea what we use to make decisions, because the candidate has no visibility into our internal issues. Most of our decisions (especially to pass) have nothing to do with the candidate. And they have no way to know, so instead they over-analyze their resume or what was said during the interview to try to extract some ki…
I made an account just to say as a frustrated person on a job search right now with pretty good qualifications what you are doing is silly. BOTH of your examples are things that in no way whatsoever make you liable legally and you have no reason not to tell the candidate in either situation. You could literally tell the candidate even vaguely that there might be issues that will take awhile to clear up before the com…
First, we randomly sampled 6,348 applications for 668 different users from TalentWorks. Then we extracted the qualifications from the original job postings and the users’ submitted resumes using proprietary algorithms. Finally, we grouped the results based on qualification match and regressed the interview rate using a Bagging ensemble of Random Forest regressors.
This is... not plausible. Effectively, they're trying to infer causality here, not merely do prediction. That has to be the case, because this is presented as useful advice---to go ahead and apply even if you don't meet all the listed qualifications. But when you're trying to infer causality you're doing social science, not data science, and that means you need to worry about omitted variables.
Here's an example: what if less qualified people who nonetheless apply are more confident. And what if that confidence is associated with other good things that show up on resumes, like attending prestigious schools, having had prestigious prior jobs, having a record of success in some other fashion, or even just doing things like paying careful attention to formatting?
This is why social scientists use tried and true techniques like old fashioned OLS regression with control variables rather than throw everything into a random forest and see if the hypothesized association standing on its own predicts things.
(Insert remark about how companies should be hiring data science people with science backgrounds rather than just pure cs backgrounds here)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Firing based on test results sounds illegal. Same reason why employers can't give iq tests to candidates anymore IIRC.
I assume that you're in USA as you don't say, what law prohibits it? Any insight on the rationale? Presumably it is not illegal to require a particular educational level or particular certificate pass which are likely to be close proxies for an "IQ" test result?
While technically not always illegal, giving an IQ test is a minefield for HR and that's why almost everyone avoids it. It all boils down to whether it is required for the job or not, and whether it would discriminate against someone who could otherwise do the job but fail the test.
Doesn't seem to have stopped a lot of people confirming their anecdotes though.
From the "methodology" section of this post: First, we randomly sampled 6,348 applications for 668 different users from TalentWorks. Then we extracted the qualifications from the original job postings and the users’ submitted resumes using proprietary algorithms. Finally, we grouped the results based on qualification match and regressed the interview rate using a Bagging ensemble of Random Forest regressors. This is.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I see a position that has been open for longer than a month, I assume they are not serious about filling it. Either they aren't really hiring or they don't want to pay the market rate.
Most of the job positions all of FAANG have posted have been open for months, some for over a year. They are really hiring and have no problem paying market rate. That's a counterexample.