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

171–180 of 220 posts

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

#171

Post by antisthenes »

mkatx wrote: post #141
antisthenes wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The answer to that depends entirely on the success rate. Over 11 years in the workforce, my success rate with applying to ATS-like platforms on company websites is 0%. And even just getting a rejection is in the neighborhood of 5-10%. So with those numbers do you still think 2.5 minutes is a lot of time? 2.5x500 applications is ~21 hours of applying to jobs. With recruiters on LinkedIn, my success rate is roughly 80%…

I've reached out to recruiters on LinkedIn, but maybe I'm not an easy candidate, because they never seem to do much for me. Do I need to do something specific or hit up the right recruiter?

Just for clarity, I have not reached out to any recruiters.

My success rate was entirely for recruiters that reached out to me first.

(I also paid $400 for an HR consultant to update my resume and LinkedIn profile as a one-time fee, so maybe that helped, but I didn't really A/B test it before and after)

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

#172

Post by red-iron-pine »

sokoloff wrote: post #104
roamerz wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Why would someone put ANYTHING on their resume that is not factually correct? If their current income is $0 and the income from a successful ruse is minimum several weeks of several thousands of dollars, and the cost per throw is around a dime… It’s not hard to see how the algebra works out.

you need algebra to figure that out?

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

#173

Post by sebbul »

When I was involved in hiring at a major enterprise, our HR recruiting lead advised against reviewing candidates directly from the ATS. The reason? Due to our company's reputation as a top workplace, many applicants indiscriminately applied to every role available. Our HR lead essentially served as a human spam filter.

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

#174

Post by bluGill »

MattPalmer1086 wrote: post #155
notsurenymore wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do people really apply for hundreds of jobs? I’ve done it twice. The first time was when I was 18 or 19 trying to get my first job in the industry. I put in a ton of applications, and while it felt tedious, it only took around three months at the end of the day. The second time was this time. I’ve probably put at least 100 applications in over the past year, and it’s been very hit or miss on whether I get interview…

Yes, I can see that working early in a career. Now that I think of it, my best friend did exactly that too when he was 19, and he managed to get his foot in the door. For what it's worth I think your current strategy of applying for relevant jobs is the right one, particularly if it's a difficult market where you are. Tangential skills are also good possibilities. I hope you find something that works for you.

When you are fresh out of college you don't stand out. A few months ago we had 100 applicants for an entry level programming position. Every applicant was finishing their bachelors (a couple in CS, the rest in computer engineering) in June. They all had done some internship (in a not very relevant area but that is expected) and a class project. Almost all of them were Eagle scouts (until recently scouts only allowed boys so this is indirectly an assessment of boy/girl ratio of applicants and thus illegal for me to care about). It was really hard to filter down who to interview because they all look the same and we only had one position. As such spaming your resume is the best bet when fresh from school.

When you have been our of school for a while we get a few resumes with interesting experience that can make a few people stand out. Most probably have standout experience, but it doesn't come out in the resume.

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

#175

Post by bluGill »

benmo_atx wrote: post #87
xnorswap wrote: post #13

The tldr seems to be that it's exceptionally quick and easy to apply for jobs, perhaps too quick and too easy, there's essentially no barrier to applying to any and every job advert seen given it apparently takes less than 10 minutes in the "worst" case.

Which makes the overall experience worse for hiring managers and qualified applicants.

And in turn we turn more to automated tools to filter even though we know they are rejecting good people who just didn't write some keyword. In turn applicants are writing worse resumes just to ensure they have the right keywords even if they honestly barely have it (NEVER say you have a keyword you don't have, but if you just barely have it put it on and prepare to explain how little you know if that really is important)

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

#176

Post by tuatoru »

pizzaknife wrote: post #28
timmaxw wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That still doesn't seem like very much time to me. Job hunting involves hours and hours of interviews; five minutes of paperwork is negligible by comparison, right? Are people mass-spamming applications or something?

"Are people mass-spamming applications or something?" since the dawn of time (1970, jan1)

Well, in 1970 you could only do about 10 a day, because you needed to type a cover letter with the hiring manager's name in it. Job search (newspaper "help wanted" ads), envelope stuffing, trips to the post office and so on took time too.

Photocopies were low quality and looked obvious and got you into the trash straight away.

So mass, but compared to population not very mass.

The real start date was Eternal September.

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

#177

Post by cluoma »

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…

I also don't think 2.5 minutes is unreasonably long or much of a barrier. After spending an hour looking for relevant postings at companies I'm interested in, another few minutes to actually apply is not a big deal.

What is truly annoying though is creating new accounts for each company's application portal.

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

#178

Post by CapstanRoller »

amDonezo wrote: post #39

Yeh; am done with “professional careers”. De-urbanizing and moving to a more rural location. Will get a job at a grocery store to avoid all the future dead people in office jobs whose toxic positivity psychosis is leading them to believe they’re leaving behind the most important outputs for the future. Such jobs are not meaningful. They’re just a form of social organization, like religion before us. Signal attenuatio…

Must be nice to have enough money to simply buy a house.

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

#179

Post by lazide »

tuatoru wrote: post #160
lazide wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I bet you’re surprised that people lie all the time to women at bars too!

.. and women have totally unrealistic criteria, too, just like employers. The internet has caused mass insanity.

It’s definitely helped spread it. But honestly, these situations are nothing new. Back in the dot-com crash I remember it all being the same. Even entry level school computer labs were requiring CS PhD’s! And women, well, same.

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

#180

Post by tuatoru »

lazide wrote: post #179
tuatoru wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

.. and women have totally unrealistic criteria, too, just like employers. The internet has caused mass insanity.

It’s definitely helped spread it. But honestly, these situations are nothing new. Back in the dot-com crash I remember it all being the same. Even entry level school computer labs were requiring CS PhD’s! And women, well, same.

Er, we had the internet during the dot-com crash. And before it, even.

As I recall, things were not quite so bad in the 1980s. I vaguely recall seeing the odd newspaper article about the intense interest in a job, because it attracted maybe 500 applications. That was newsworthy.

Post reply on HN