3 ms·
It could have been automated, but having the human make the call leads to a slightly decreased level of people madly trying to google up answers to 'what is the
by evgen 9y ago
It could have been automated, but having the human make the call leads to a slightly decreased level of people madly trying to google up answers to 'what is the expected exit code for a program that had no errors?' so that the next phase of the process is not a complete waste of time for all parties involved. The recruiters are just trying to see if there is any chance that you might actually have the skill set claimed on your CV; if you can't answer their simple questions then your resume is complete BS and they will move on, but after asking the same questions over and over and over the recruiting team also knows the response of someone for whom the questions are insultingly easy and can move those candidates to the front of the queue for the next stage.
- txcwpalpha 9y agoYea, that's all well and good and I used to do recruiting for my old company where that was the case, except that wasn't even what was happening here. The Facebook recruiter himself told me that he was simply recording my answers down to be reviewed by someone else. He didn't seem to know what a "good" answer was versus a "bad" answer, and he didn't care. The questions he asked weren't about nor related to my resume, they were just generic "tell me about a time when you worked on a team with other people" type questions, and the recruiter wasn't really more than a notetaker for my responses. I get that having a "human element" makes the process seem slightly more personal, and I would hate to be a part of a recruiting process that literally is just robots, but in the case where your job can literally be completely replaced by nothing more than an online HTML form or a robocall, what are you even doing?