Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I automated my job application process

blog.daviddodda.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 884 posts

Re: I automated my job application process

#191

Post by bdangubic »

stackskipton wrote: post #188
pknomad wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am a Platform Engineer and it feels like your experience mirrors mine. Like you, our challenge is filtering out large volume but also filtering out LLM abusers. We're not opposed to people using LLMs, when appropriate. I find that candidates inappropriately use it to circumvent the process and that is a big deal for me (and our team). We try to do the right thing(TM) by the candidates by creating minimal interview…

In our remote interviews, I've started pasting the question into meeting chat that I've already fed into ChatGPT. Mainly because some candidates do actually do better with reading and thinking but it's also just pure bait to paste into their open ChatGPT window. Since I've already got input on my side, if they start reading off ChatGPT output, they get a strike, two strikes and interview is ended. However, I do belie…

it is surprising there isn’t some SaaS bullshit company that solves this problem. we have shit like Pearsons and whatnots when taking exams, I took few certification exams and it was like

- install this thing that takes over my machine

- 360 camera around to show my surroundings

- no phone/watch/…

One would think by now there’d be two Stanford grads with a SaaS shit taking care of this for $899/hr

Last interview I did it was obvious candidate was cheating. Gave him my cell and told him to call me, no speakerphone or bluetooth and hung up Teams meeting - never got a call :)

Re: I automated my job application process

#192

Post by the_snooze »

ghaff wrote: post #130
programjames wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The smaller scale in the past made it so managers either knew (at least by reputation) the person submitting the resume, or it was not too expensive to find out. Nowadays, jobs are getting 100x as many applications, most of which are far lower in quality. University admissions has followed a similar trend, going from 5–10 being "spray and pray" twenty years ago to 20–30 applications nowadays. However, it didn't incre…

The "solution," such as it is, is that companies strongly bias towards referrals and managers towards people they personally know. And, from some conversations I've had, that is exactly what is happening. With the result that it's tough for junior people with no real networks (OK maybe their school is a signal) because companies really don't want to sift all the junk they're getting and I don't really blame them.

>OK maybe their school is a signal

"School" is quite variable.

Weak signal: you only went to class and did OK in them.

Strong signal: you had an internship, or undergrad research experience, or part-time employment as a TA/tutor, or have a completed project to show off, or some kind of non-trivial community/group/club/fraternity leadership.

Really strong signal: you published a paper with someone I know and they recommend you to me.

Re: I automated my job application process

#193

Post by austin-cheney »

For hiring managers, if you getting a flood of resumes here is a possible solution for a filter: unpopular things and manual instructions.

1. Manual instructions. On the application submission page mention something like: All resumes or cover letters must copy and apply the following statement or will be dropped from consideration. This tests that candidates actually read and follow the instructions and rejections can be automated with a simple string search.

2. For that 1% of candidates that do follow instructions that during the technical filter phase of interviewing they will be required to do something unpopular as a demonstration of prior coding experience. In my case as a JavaScript developer it was walking the DOM from one node location to another. I was able to filter 22 candidates down to two and that doesn’t include the larger number that dropped out.

Re: I automated my job application process

#194

Post by elashri »

stackskipton wrote: post #188
pknomad wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am a Platform Engineer and it feels like your experience mirrors mine. Like you, our challenge is filtering out large volume but also filtering out LLM abusers. We're not opposed to people using LLMs, when appropriate. I find that candidates inappropriately use it to circumvent the process and that is a big deal for me (and our team). We try to do the right thing(TM) by the candidates by creating minimal interview…

In our remote interviews, I've started pasting the question into meeting chat that I've already fed into ChatGPT. Mainly because some candidates do actually do better with reading and thinking but it's also just pure bait to paste into their open ChatGPT window. Since I've already got input on my side, if they start reading off ChatGPT output, they get a strike, two strikes and interview is ended. However, I do belie…

I'm pretty sure the temperature of even GPT4o-mini is not 0 so how would you know it is the something like you have. It would be hard to be reading an answer, it would feel awkward and probably obvious it itself. But I'm just saying that some people would have memorized answers to some standard questions (they apply to many places as you might know).

Re: I automated my job application process

#195

Post by RicoElectrico »

nsxwolf wrote: post #101
pishpash wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Referrals and networking? When has submitting a resume to a portal ever been the way to find a job other than a cookie cutter one? Apply like a bot, work like a bot.

I haven’t seen the power of referrals for 10 years now. At work I can give you a “referral” by uploading your resume to our ATS. That’s it. It receives no more consideration than if you were to click Easy Apply on LinkedIn as far as I’m aware.

I referred two friends at my former employer and the process has changed in the span of 5 years; first one needed at least a short recommendation, second was pretty much fire and forget (and hope for the bonus if they get hired)

Re: I automated my job application process

#196

Post by ponector »

HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #98
codegeek wrote: post #12

Nice. But as a hiring manager, this is the last thing we want. Flooded with auto submitted Resumes. I posted a job recently and got 100+ resumes in 2 days and 99% were not even remotely close to being a good fit. I struggled to sort through so many Resumes to find someone worth interviewing. The problem is that with so much noise, good candidates may get ignored or rejected by mistake. And the cycle continues. I get…

Maybe not your company, but it seems hiring companies brought this upon themselves with immediate AI rejects of qualified candidates, ghost jobs, ghosting candidates after interview, etc, etc. If it takes a qualified candidate 100's of applications to land a single interview, then can you blame someone for automating it? I'd say that having the initiative and ability to automate it well would make this guy a great hi…

That is true. Companies are using LLM in ATS to filter resume.

If they can bullshit job description to reach more applications why candidates cannot do the same with CV?

The result we are going to is almost every CV now will be a 99% matching to the job description thanks to LLM tools.

And cover letter is even more useless now.

Re: I automated my job application process

#197

Post by programjames »

randomifcpfan wrote: post #187
programjames wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Credit scores seem to be pretty robust? Maybe this kind of system would work: 1. A third-party assigns everyone a hidden score, and gives them a cryptographic signing key. 2. They can sign off on one-time lookups to companies they apply to. Every time their credit score is looked up, it decreases to disincentivize "spray and pray". 3. Companies are incentivized to go directly to the third-party (to ensure truthiness)…

College degrees from reputable colleges used to serve this purpose, but grade inflation has greatly weakened this signal.

You also want colleges to signal to their applicants, not force them to also signal for their alumni. The two will naturally be correlated, but you can do better by specializing.

Re: I automated my job application process

#198

Post by programjames »

olddustytrail wrote: post #144
programjames wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A reputation score is only a blacklist if you target specific people to tank their reputations.

Yes, that's what happens.

Is this also your opinion on credit scores used for loans?

Re: I automated my job application process

#199

Post by ghaff »

the_snooze wrote: post #192
ghaff wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "solution," such as it is, is that companies strongly bias towards referrals and managers towards people they personally know. And, from some conversations I've had, that is exactly what is happening. With the result that it's tough for junior people with no real networks (OK maybe their school is a signal) because companies really don't want to sift all the junk they're getting and I don't really blame them.

>OK maybe their school is a signal "School" is quite variable. Weak signal: you only went to class and did OK in them. Strong signal: you had an internship, or undergrad research experience, or part-time employment as a TA/tutor, or have a completed project to show off, or some kind of non-trivial community/group/club/fraternity leadership. Really strong signal: you published a paper with someone I know and they reco…

Typically, undergrads aren't publishing papers. I did co-author a paper in grad school though it was irrelevant to my eventual job.

Most people are looking at whether you just went to (whatever they consider) a top tier university.

Re: I automated my job application process

#200

Post by salomon812 »

sarchertech wrote: post #189
salomon812 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know the on-site is time-consuming and expensive, but so is firing people (at least in United States it is.) I've had a few on-site interviews where having them on-site made us realize we could never work with them. Given how much time they will spend with you, it's totally worth it to spend your resources on hiring.

Firing people isn’t as expensive as people make it out to be. People vastly overestimate the chance of a lawsuit. And they overestimate the chance of a lawsuit that makes it far enough that it costs significant money even more. Hiring fast and firing fast (for lying or misrepresentation) is almost always a better business decision than being ultra defensive in the hiring process.

It's not the lawsuit, it's about the time wasted as a manager and salary to the person as you work out if it's actually time to fire. Performance Improvement Plans, a bunch of back-and-forths. I'm not going to be the kind of person that fires quickly, so there's a bunch of sunk cost we have to take. Plus, fast firing creates a cooling effect among everyone there.

And for what? To save money on hiring? Not worth it.

Post reply on HN