251–260 of 385 posts
Not only that, but lying and stringing people along is extremely prevalent. I truly feel like people doing the hiring have mental health issues.
People on the other side of the table have metrics to meet and a pipeline to keep filled. They care less about how many offers are extended.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would consider sending out 200 applications (for someone with some experience to reasonably targeted openings) to be an extraordinarily high number. I doubt if I sent out that many form letter scattershot from pre-internet grad school. Certainly hasn't been the case since. To be sure, the few other jobs I've had have all come through personal connections.
I had just assumed that if someone was sending out 200 applications, it was pretty much the same resume going to all of them (no catering it to the individual interests of the employer) - with perhaps some exceptions to jobs the applicant was particularly interested in. I can't imagine sending out that many having spent large quantities of time on each one. [edited to fix typing the wrong word]
Though I'm also open to the possibility that some companies just want to hire some number of developers with 3-5 years of experience in $TECHNOLOGY and aren't too fussy beyond that. In which case, it may indeed become more of a numbers game if a company is basically picking a handful of resumes at random that clear some minimum bar.
Every time I see people mentioning that they've sent X00 applications for jobs, I always think of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__lvS2pjuSg Recap: - Think of a job search as social engineering your way into an organization - Use that framework to figure out what the org cares about, who cares about it and then how to position yourself so that person sees your "work" - "Work" b/c it's not your resume, it…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Came here to say this. Rather than a metric of "how many total jobs have I applied to", a perhaps more effective metric would be "how many high quality applications have I put in, how many opportunities have I been exposed to via referral, how many friends do I have looking on my behalf/providing introductions to hiring managers who are actively hiring". Blindly applying to listings you find online with no "in", is g…
OP here. Great advice for people with a big network, though of course if a company is waiting for a strong referral before hiring, they're not really that desperate, which was my thesis.
For the most part, desperate employers are not the ones you want to work for anyhow. They're desperate for a reason. It's not like there's some scarcity of candidates now, especially as layoffs before more common.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe that is the problem. Instead of applying to 100 companies out of desperation, if a candidate practices and develops specific marketable skills and targets specific roles, he only needs to apply to 10 companies that he knows deeply and are in tune with his skills. The law of reversed effort — When you focus on your own skills and self-worth instead of desperately pursuing random externalities, externalities that…
That sounds nice, but it can be a bad really limiting to have high expectations of only getting jobs that initially appeal to you for multiple reasons. 1. Time spent researching or preparing for a job doesn't guarantee you anything. 2. Sometimes the most appealing jobs are the most competitive, meaning you might have less of a chance of getting them and they might have worse comp or quality of life 3. Some positions…
It should also be emphasized that jobs at famous organizations that you might legitimately have heard of already or been inspired by are going to be very competitive even if the salary is low and you far exceed the posted requirements.
I work at Apple and my team has been “hiring” for the last 2 years with no offers so far. Why? Because even if you are a good candidate, hiring is not as easy as people think. Among the many challengues we have I can list the following: 1. The people interested in your profile have minimal influence in the process, 2. There are people who are always chasing for the shiny new object (or person, in this case), 3. There…
A lot of companies say "we're hiring" but are not hiring , defined as actually extending an offer and actually employing someone. They're fishing, but not catching, or they're catching and releasing. We need a more precise word than "hiring". Everyone can say they're hiring, but they're not actually hiring anyone--they're just fishing.
Economists pull demand curves out of their asses when the only verifiable facts are actual, concrete sales.
Every time I see people mentioning that they've sent X00 applications for jobs, I always think of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__lvS2pjuSg Recap: - Think of a job search as social engineering your way into an organization - Use that framework to figure out what the org cares about, who cares about it and then how to position yourself so that person sees your "work" - "Work" b/c it's not your resume, it…
And after all of this work your resume gets ignored because the recruiter got distracted for the 5 seconds that he has to look at each of 1000 resumes in his pile.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had just assumed that if someone was sending out 200 applications, it was pretty much the same resume going to all of them (no catering it to the individual interests of the employer) - with perhaps some exceptions to jobs the applicant was particularly interested in. I can't imagine sending out that many having spent large quantities of time on each one. [edited to fix typing the wrong word]
I would assume so as well although that may be the problem. Though I'm also open to the possibility that some companies just want to hire some number of developers with 3-5 years of experience in $TECHNOLOGY and aren't too fussy beyond that. In which case, it may indeed become more of a numbers game if a company is basically picking a handful of resumes at random that clear some minimum bar.
Of course everyone wants to be a premium brand but sometimes it just doesn't work out like that.
A challenge is that most job listings are mostly "3-5 years of experience in $TECHNOLOGY," or rather there are so many $TECHNOLOGIES listed that almost no one is going to be an expert in all of them. It's difficult to tell from the outside whether they want someone who has experience in at least some of the core and can learn the rest, or whether they're holding out for the perfect candidate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hate that there's so much talk about networks. There's a ton of talk about anti-discrimination, equity/equality, etc in other areas of HN. What's the word for cronyism if the person is qualified?
It’s not cronyism - it’s people knowing your portfolio of work and abilities. And at the end of the day - do whatever you need to within reason to put food on your own table. Don’t worry about someone else judging you for cronyism for feeding your family.