Automated Job Rejection • Hacker News Board

Re: Automated Job Rejection

#21

Post by philwelch » Mon, Jul 16, 2012, 1:37 AM UTC

Apocryphon wrote: post #18

acslater00 wrote: post #17

There is a moderately interesting point to be made here that automated candidate screening software is not a panacea, and while it can do a good job of filtering through the hundreds or thousands of applicants that might materialize for a single post, it might cause you to miss out on a good fit. On the other hand, this article is laden with so much hyperbolic moralizing that it makes me take almost none of it seriou…

But they're not talking about startups. They're talking about large corporations that could sustain training of new employees.

Maybe it's easier and less costly to find someone who's already qualified than to determine whether someone is capable of being trained, and then train them.

As it happens, big companies already have to train even the most qualified new employees, because they usually have developed complicated internal cultures and systems. Training someone in basic qualifications on top of that is a big ask.

One of the few employers who does that is the military, and they often spend years training people. On the other side of that, officers who receive lots of training are usually legally obligated to serve the military for several years. Though even a basic enlisted man will spend maybe 1/2 to 1/4 of his first four-year enlistment in training.

At-will employment makes that kind of contract impossible in the private sector. So not only is it a big ask for companies to train unqualified people, it's an even bigger ask for them to do so knowing that as soon as those trainees are qualified, they can and often will jump ship to another company.

That might be a risk companies are willing to bear if they're badly in need of qualified folks and can get a competitive advantage that way. I'm generally more sympathetic to an actual business case to that effect rather than vague, entitled complaints about corporate America.

Re: Automated Job Rejection

#22

Post by natrius » Mon, Jul 16, 2012, 1:39 AM UTC

Apocryphon wrote: post #18

acslater00 wrote: post #17

There is a moderately interesting point to be made here that automated candidate screening software is not a panacea, and while it can do a good job of filtering through the hundreds or thousands of applicants that might materialize for a single post, it might cause you to miss out on a good fit. On the other hand, this article is laden with so much hyperbolic moralizing that it makes me take almost none of it seriou…

But they're not talking about startups. They're talking about large corporations that could sustain training of new employees.

Assuming you're right, who cares? Why must large corporations train employees if they don't feel it's in their best interests?

Re: Automated Job Rejection

#23

Post by readme » Mon, Jul 16, 2012, 1:42 AM UTC

victork2 wrote: post #15

tomasien wrote: post #13

Just got hired to make software that ranks candidates based on more dynamic qualities, like the ability to answer basic logic problems or complete a task that the job may require. Could be cool.

I don't want to be mean or anything ( and probably it will go against the HN crowd) but you're part of the problem. Basically it's the reliance on computerized system to assess somebody's skills that is at the root of the problem. I know it seems horrendous to a lot of people that thinks that computers are the solution to every problem but as of the current state of technology, it just does not work. I have been in t…

I disagree that there is a problem. The problem is that you are choosing to apply at places that employ hiring mechanisms that you personally object to.

So I think that you're the problem. Some people appreciate the rigorous screening. If you don't, apply somewhere else.

Re: Automated Job Rejection

#24

Post by lnanek2 » Mon, Jul 16, 2012, 1:46 AM UTC

I was reading a book recently that called getting arrested, "being put on the electronic plantation". This was just getting an arrest too, not even a conviction. The logic was that all the good jobs do background checks nowadays and won't even interview someone with an arrest. So someone working retail with an arrest wouldn't be able to move up to bank teller, for example. Now throw in that you can be arrested even in cases where you are innocent or in cases of identity theft...

Re: Automated Job Rejection

#25

Post by legutierr » Mon, Jul 16, 2012, 1:49 AM UTC

incongruity wrote: post #14

(warning: anecdote ahead) I once had a job at a large institution created, for me, with requirements based solely on my resume. The automated HR system decided I wasn't a match for the job. It took a month or two for them to be able to hire me after that fiasco.

I hope that they replaced or repaired the automated system. How did it turn out?

Re: Automated Job Rejection

#26

Post by knowtheory » Mon, Jul 16, 2012, 1:49 AM UTC

natrius wrote: post #22

Apocryphon wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But they're not talking about startups. They're talking about large corporations that could sustain training of new employees.

Assuming you're right, who cares? Why must large corporations train employees if they don't feel it's in their best interests?

If you're talking about the social contract... who is supposed to train employees? It's certainly the case currently that the US workforce bears the burden of training itself currently often by taking on substantial debt to afford a college degree.

But to say that companies that operate in the US don't have a substantial interest in ensuring that the US has a trained and skilled work force... that just seems dangerously short sighted.

Re: Automated Job Rejection

#27

Post by brudgers » Mon, Jul 16, 2012, 1:51 AM UTC

Automated resume rejection makes a lot of sense.

If there are 200 applicants for a position, software which eliminates all of the candidates only has 0.5% error.

That's pretty good AI.

Re: Automated Job Rejection

#28

Post by joezydeco » Mon, Jul 16, 2012, 1:51 AM UTC

mgkimsal wrote: post #16

joezydeco wrote: post #11

How about the fact that none of these employers even have the courtesy to contact the applicant at all? I'm not talking only about unsolicited resumes sent to H/R managers, but job applications submitted through the big websites like Dice, Monster, and Careerbuilder. Not even a "we'll keep you on file" like the old days. I'm half-tempted to make a shame board to let applicants tally up how many unanswered candidates…

but but but.... everyone would sue the company because they didn't get the job! At least, that's the argument I've heard from HR people as to why applicants aren't contacted back. However... whether you contact me or not, I still don't have the job, and if I'm inclined to sue, I'll do it regardless of whether you show me basic courtesy or not.

You're two steps ahead of where I am.

I'm talking about a basic acknowledgement that the resume was received. An email like this would suffice:

"Hello. Thanks for applying to FooCorp. We're currently processing resumes in the order they are received. If you meet our needs and we're interested, we'll be in touch within 4-6 weeks."

The fact that the job sites don't even enable this kind of tracking and behavior is, frankly, very disappointing.

Re: Automated Job Rejection

#29

Post by cperciva » Mon, Jul 16, 2012, 1:51 AM UTC

incongruity wrote: post #14

(warning: anecdote ahead) I once had a job at a large institution created, for me, with requirements based solely on my resume. The automated HR system decided I wasn't a match for the job. It took a month or two for them to be able to hire me after that fiasco.

I don't know anything about your specific case (obviously) but what you describe isn't necessarily a bad thing. In some organizations, one of the rules of HR is to add a level of corporate sanity-checking to a process which is otherwise driven by individual managers -- by creating additional unstated requirements if necessary.

To take an extreme case, if Bob the VP of Sales decides he wants to create a "Senior Engineer III" position with a salary of $300k/year based on requirements drawn from his 13 year old nephew's resume, it's entirely appropriate for HR to add an unpublished "should have education or work experience suitable for a $300k/year job" requirement and not accept Bob's 13 year old nephew as a match for the job.

No system is perfect, but that doesn't mean that it's wrong to have such systems in place.

Re: Automated Job Rejection

#30

Post by cperciva » Mon, Jul 16, 2012, 1:54 AM UTC

knowtheory wrote: post #26

natrius wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming you're right, who cares? Why must large corporations train employees if they don't feel it's in their best interests?

If you're talking about the social contract... who is supposed to train employees? It's certainly the case currently that the US workforce bears the burden of training itself currently often by taking on substantial debt to afford a college degree. But to say that companies that operate in the US don't have a substantial interest in ensuring that the US has a trained and skilled work force... that just seems dangerou…

Companies have an interest in there being a trained and skilled work force -- which is why they lobby for the government to spend tax dollars on education and training.

There's no inconsistency between it not being advantageous for companies to spend their own money training people and it being advantageous for companies to spend everybody's money training people.