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

I applied to 250 jobs and timed how long each one took

careerfair.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 220 posts

Re: I applied to 250 jobs and timed how long each one took

#161

Post by BeetleB »

hollander wrote: post #127
lbarrow wrote: post #35

I appreciate this guy taking the time to test this stuff out, but... 2.5 minutes per application seems really reasonable and short? Even the Post Office application that took 10 minutes seems fine. I get that you might have to apply to a lot of different jobs, but at that rate in 2-3 hours of focused work, you could apply to nearly a hundred different jobs. The fact that it's that easy to apply belies the tone the ar…

When I apply for a job it takes me at least an hour if not more. I adopt my resumé, write the motivation letter. If I spend less then 15 minutes it means I'm doing it as a requirement from the social benefits agency, for a job that I don't want.

> I adopt my resumé, write the motivation letter.

Only to find out that the other side didn't read that letter, and most didn't read the resume.

I know, because I asked.

Re: I applied to 250 jobs and timed how long each one took

#162

Post by bluGill »

gear54rus wrote: post #64
kevmarsden wrote: post #27

Most job application flows are suboptimal, but job seekers need to stop maximizing the number of applications they submit and instead create a few really great applications. I typically spend two or three hours writing a cover letter and customizing my resume for each job application.

My god.. 3 hours for a cover letter, mind sharing an example of one?

Cover letter and resume. Which is more reasonable. You should be reading the job ad closely to make sure you match that. Then do some research on the company to make sure you understand what they do - often you can think of some other relevant experience that isn't in the ad.

Don't forget that this isn't a hackernews comment. You should take an hour (day is better!) break and then reread and revise everything. Don't send the rough draft or even the second draft in - follow the whole writing process they told you in school. Some people will spot a spelling error at the bottom of the page in one second and reject you, so make sure everything is perfect.

Re: I applied to 250 jobs and timed how long each one took

#163

Post by xormapmap »

lbarrow wrote: post #35

I appreciate this guy taking the time to test this stuff out, but... 2.5 minutes per application seems really reasonable and short? Even the Post Office application that took 10 minutes seems fine. I get that you might have to apply to a lot of different jobs, but at that rate in 2-3 hours of focused work, you could apply to nearly a hundred different jobs. The fact that it's that easy to apply belies the tone the ar…

The actual application step might take that long, assuming you have all your supporting documents ready. The trouble is you often need to adapt your CV to the job & write a cover letter at a minimum. Depending how much you care about the job, this might include studying the job description carefully, reading the company website, and maybe even contacting the company to request more information. Then proof-reading and editing everything. It probably takes me at least an hour for most jobs, even if the actual submission of files only took 1 minute in the end.

Re: I applied to 250 jobs and timed how long each one took

#164

Post by fastback »

roamerz wrote: post #67
kiltedpanda wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We hire on Freelancer sites quite a bit and have noticed that about 50%-80% of applicants now very obviously use ChatGPT or equivalent to apply. Now suddenly every person magically has 8 years experience in a weird esoteric requirement that we're looking for. They are currently very easy to spot and the applications go directly into the trash, so the freelancers aren't doing themselves any favors using them. It is in…

> Now suddenly every person magically has 8 years experience in a weird esoteric requirement that we're looking for. That's crazy to me. Why would someone put ANYTHING on their resume that is not factually correct? That in the end is a disservice to yourself and to your potential employer, not to mention the pressure it puts on job seekers to push the envelope on embellishment. What I am on the fence about in my own…

I think it depends a bit on where you are in life.

I remember exaggerating a bit when applying for my first job. I was fresh out of university and really needed that job. I spent the following 2 years miserable, I just didn't fit in that well.

Nowadays I'm brutally honest with my application and the following interviews. I see it as me choosing where to work rather than the other way around. If they pick my application then I more or less know that I will fit in rather well. It has served me well over the years.

I can understand people being desperate and in need of that first job or having to start over due to different reasons though...

Re: I applied to 250 jobs and timed how long each one took

#165

Post by marssaxman »

mongol wrote: post #19

The worst is is you have to enter all your skills in some CV-builder, and select your choices in tons of select boxes.

I skip all those - any company willing to begin a relationship with potential future coworkers by putting them through such a tedious, time-wasting exercise is not a place I would want to work.

Re: I applied to 250 jobs and timed how long each one took

#166

Post by tuatoru »

kiltedpanda wrote: post #68
thaumaturgy wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, but I have a resume that is a good fit for a lot of different roles but isn't seen by any human ever because it doesn't include the specific combination of keywords mentioned in the job posting. I am in the process right now of embedding keywords and a "shadow resume" invisibly in my resume to get past the stupid filtering software. Employers are doing this to themselves.

Sure, tailoring your resume for a specific job is pretty standard. Perhaps an LLM that has access to your resume, along with loads of documentation on what you have previously done would provide for a much better automation process. It could read the job spec, then tailor your application with information that is actually true. Starting off with a company with information that is false is not a great way to start a (…

I sometimes think requiring people to telephone and navigate a voice system to get an application ID before they can apply might help.

Tiny barriers can have disproportionate effects.

Re: I applied to 250 jobs and timed how long each one took

#167

Post by red-iron-pine »

1323portloo wrote: post #158
arccy wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's long if you don't have the connections to get a job through your network and need to sort of spray and pray to even get to a recruiter screen

Something you don't want to learn post-graduation: if you don't have the connections to get a job, you simply don't have a prayer.

i've been hired through online applications. current gig, actually.

but of all of my jobs, to include bartending and FedGov, that's the only one. the rest came through personal contacts.

i guess the military applies, but that's not really the same thing.

Re: I applied to 250 jobs and timed how long each one took

#168

Post by barryrandall »

0xffff2 wrote: post #86
PascLeRasc wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very likely going to be zero. The only way I can get a chance at a phone screen is to spend at least an hour crafting my resume and cover letter for each position.

Can you describe in more detail what this actually means? I can't imagine what I would spend an hour doing to my resume that would somehow make it more attractive to a specific employer without outright lying.

Back when I thought companies put any thought into their ads, I'd take each ad, make a list of things the job is looking for, and update my base resume with any relevant experience, making sure that things on the "looking for" list were at the top of their respective category.

I scaled back a bit once I saw how people actually write job descriptions (search Google until they find something "close enough" and post that verbatim).

Re: I applied to 250 jobs and timed how long each one took

#169

Post by tuatoru »

ToucanLoucan wrote: post #119
kiltedpanda wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't the use of automation that is the problem. It's that in the automated applications we're receiving, there is very obviously fraudulent information in there. The applicants are LYING about their experience, in order to match the job specification. ChatGPT just consumes each of the job requirements, and then makes a story about how the applicant has had significant experience in all of those areas. I would pre…

> It isn't the use of automation that is the problem. It's that in the automated applications we're receiving, there is very obviously fraudulent information in there. The applicants are LYING about their experience, in order to match the job specification. Who cares? The specifications half the time include experience that's impossible to achieve because the people writing them either are also in turn using automate…

... just like in dating!

Re: I applied to 250 jobs and timed how long each one took

#170

Post by tuatoru »

ar_lan wrote: post #106
timmaxw wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's a dynamic where: - Desirable job applicants get hired quickly, but people who can't get hired stay on the market - People who can't get hired will keep applying to more and more jobs - So every new job opening gets flooded with applications from people who couldn't get hired elsewhere - Employers don't have time to read the flood of applications in detail, so they rely on cheap filters (keywords on re…

> What if there was some way to limit job seekers to e.g. 10 job applications per month, industrywide? Feels like that could cut down the noise and allow employers to consider each individual applicant more carefully. Beyond the actual difficulty in doing this without a completely centralized hiring process, this feels incredibly immoral. People have families to feed.

repeat of my comment above: -

I sometimes think requiring people to telephone and navigate a voice system to get an application ID before they can apply might help.

Tiny barriers can have disproportionate effects.

Post reply on HN