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

191–200 of 220 posts

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

#191

Post by joe5150 »

notsurenymore wrote: post #115
joe5150 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many years ago, I had to complete a long personality inventory AND about 45 minutes of "what would you do"-type scenario simulations to apply for a job at...Kmart! Then the manager no-showed when I came in for the interview.

Retail applications have gotten lazy recently. I put one in, and they wanted a recorded interview. No one on the other side, I was expected to just awkwardly record myself answering some questions and send it in.

I was asked to do that for a state government job that paid above market, so it's not just retail. It was awkward and I would probably decline to do it again unless for some reason I still really wanted the job.

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

#192

Post by avidiax »

ufmace wrote: post #182
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…

This, and a few more dynamics, including: - The better applicants usually have several warm leads and often don't bother with high-effort application processes, since they have a pretty decent chance of getting hired wherever they apply, and they're also not bothering to apply for things they're wildly unqualified for - The worse and more desperate applicants have the time and motivation to stick through the most biz…

> So thus, the more hoops you put into your process to try and stem the tide of the hoards of desperate unqualified applicants, the more you disproportionately screen out the highly qualified applicants who have better things to do and better opportunities to pursue.

Exactly. Asking me to upload a resume, and then data entry all the facts from my resume into form fields, just so that a company can not even reject me, basically tells me that I will be expendable drone #88238875 if I get a job there.

I feel a little bad that sometimes the recruiter probably fills the form out for me if their process requires is, but at least they actually intend to follow up on me as a lead.

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

#193

Post by ignite2 »

MostlyStable wrote: post #136

I remain confused by the absense of a sizeable reverse headhunter industry. Headhunters are trying to find a best fit for a company. Why is there no one trying to find a best fit for a candidate? The inherent problem in hiring, on both sides, is search costs. I'm probably going to be searching for a new job sometime next year. I think that, to avoid the time spent on these appliations, and to ensure a relatively good…

There used to be many of these, but they became mostly scams that preyed on desperate job seekers. By the time I started job hunting, many years back, this industry was viewed about like nigerian princes. No sensible person would deal with them.

There are career coaches to be found these days, I'm not intending to include them in this rant. I've had a few friends use them, and I've talked to one and he was reasonable.

As an individual, I'd avoid anyone that wants a percentage. Specified fee for helping with resume, linkedin profile, etc., fine.

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

#194

Post by jddj »

tamimio wrote: post #147
jddj wrote: post #17

I overheard a guy at the gym a couple of weeks back saying that he's automated (gpt4) the keyword-optimised CV/cover letter process to the point where he was able to apply to - I'm a bit suspect on this bit, but the generation at least is believable - 75 jobs in an hour and a half. We've raised the noise floor significantly. Ps. If you're here mate I hope it worked out for you.

> If you're here mate I hope it worked out for you I hope it didn’t, contaminating the applications like this and automating it will only hurt the ones who’s applying, because now authentic resumes and legit knowledge will be overlooked by other fake auto generated resumes. This try hard wannabe attitude is always going to ruin the experience for everyone else, either in jobs, blog writings, dating, gaming, and basic…

Yeah. With the genie being as far out of the bottle as it is though, I opted for empathy for the unemployed guy in this case.

I can see your point, absolutely, and the new normal is unfortunate and probably unsustainable.

Careers boards are just another early battleground where we're at a bit of a wait and see moment as for how we're going to deal with all of this cheap, coherent noise.

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

#195

Post by bluGill »

BeFlatXIII wrote: post #186
bluGill wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> It was really hard to filter down who to interview because they all look the same and we only had one position Did you make up some BS metrics, or did you do the honest thing and draw résumés from a hat?

That was my bosses problem. If we have more than 10 résumés he filters them and tells me. He used to be technical so he can filter well enough and I can focus on real work not hiring.

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

#196

Post by smnrchrds »

rdedev wrote: post #58
cushychicken wrote: post #9

Oh goodness, someone else who shares my irrational antipathy for Workday! Workday is such junk from a user facing perspective. It’s a huge pain to index content from. I have to omit a bunch of big semiconductor companies from my job site because it’s fucking impossible to get job data out of Workday. If you work in talent at either NXP or Qualcomm, please God read this essay. You are actively harming your own recruit…

Workday is weird. It's a chore to apply but things like simplify jobs browser addon makes ituch better. That being said I have more luck getting a response from a workday application than greenhouse or lever. Maybe the harder pathway discourages spam applications

Which add-on is that? Do you happen to have a link?

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

#198

Post by GuB-42 »

dvngnt_ wrote: post #38
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…

have you thought of adding a trap that a LLM might trip on but a human wouldn't.

The problem is not the LLM, the lies are the problem.

I don't think an employer would mind a résumé that is factually correct, but edited by a LLM. In the style of "here is my résumé, emphasize the items that match this job offer, and also, fix my grammar and spelling".

Here, the candidates are using a LLM to invent experience that matches the job offer, making a fake résumé. A human doing it doesn't make it better.

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

#199

Post by timmaxw »

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.

> People have families to feed.

People would submit fewer applications, but each individual application would have a higher chance of success, because everyone else would _also_ be submitting fewer applications. The number of job openings is the same either way, so the same number of people get hired in the end, right?

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

#200

Post by moneywoes »

transcriptase wrote: post #20

Apply to Procter & Gamble, and as part of the application itself enjoy being put through 1-2 hours of ambiguous personality/morality testing and Mensa-style math, memorization, and logic puzzles! With adaptive difficulty! It's the most surreal and absurd experience. There are actually prep courses you can pay for just to improve your odds on the P&G testing process just to get someone to actually see your resume. Be…

are they considered the faang in their domain?
Post reply on HN