3 ms·

Yes. With 50-company approach you increase the absolute number of first callbacks you get (hence everyone thinks it's optimal). With 5-company approach you inc

Yes. With 50-company approach you increase the absolute number of first callbacks you get (hence everyone thinks it's optimal). With 5-company approach you increase the odds of actually getting through to a single job offer. Think about it.

astura 7y ago
>you increase the odds of actually getting through to a single job offer You haven't AT ALL explained why your "~5 companies approach" is more likely to get you an offer. It's not. That sort of approach would be less likely to get you an offer anywhere that I've ever worked. 999 times out of 1000 you don't have a clue to a company's current business needs just by looking at public information, even if you had insider information, a random insider probably doesn't know the current business needs of anyone outside of their day-to-day job. Even if you did know the company's current business needs, unsolicited job applications from strangers to people who aren't recruiters mostly go straight into the trash bin. If I personally received unsolicited job application from a stranger, I'd probably just ignore it. The most I'd ever do is reply telling them to apply via our career site like everyone else. Plus what exactly would you say as a "run of the mill beginner" for "what you can do for their business" that would catch anyone's attention that a quality resume and cover letter submitted though the job portal wouldn't?
- ben509 7y ago
  It's because E(#offers) = #applications * P(initial_contact) * P(successful_interview | initial_contact) The ~5 companies approach tries to optimize P(ic) and P(si) at the expense of #apps. The 50 approach optimizes only #apps because it assumes P(ic) is low, and disregards P(si). Especially P(si) is very important because the interview's purpose is to determine that you're a good match for them. If they're just another company you spammed an application out to, that becomes very obvious. The ~5 companies approach forces you to have already selected them because you think there's a solid business case for them to hire you. And you can make that case during both your initial contact and the interview, thus maximizing P(ic) and P(si). > 999 times out of 1000 you don't have a clue to a company's current business needs just by looking at public information I'd say it's more like 9/10, but that absolutely makes the case for the ~5 company approach. You're filtering out the ones that have a poor recruiting process. It takes a lot of time to put together a good application and you have to focus on companies that will not only be responsive but follow through all the way to the hiring decision. So focus on companies that make it clear what they do and what the position entails will tend to maximize P(ic) and P(si).

astura 7y ago

>you increase the odds of actually getting through to a single job offer You haven't AT ALL explained why your "~5 companies approach" is more likely to get you an offer. It's not. That sort of approach would be less likely to get you an offer anywhere that I've ever worked. 999 times out of 1000 you don't have a clue to a company's current business needs just by looking at public information, even if you had insider information, a random insider probably doesn't know the current business needs of anyone outside of their day-to-day job. Even if you did know the company's current business needs, unsolicited job applications from strangers to people who aren't recruiters mostly go straight into the trash bin. If I personally received unsolicited job application from a stranger, I'd probably just ignore it. The most I'd ever do is reply telling them to apply via our career site like everyone else. Plus what exactly would you say as a "run of the mill beginner" for "what you can do for their business" that would catch anyone's attention that a quality resume and cover letter submitted though the job portal wouldn't?

ben509 7y ago
It's because E(#offers) = #applications * P(initial_contact) * P(successful_interview | initial_contact) The ~5 companies approach tries to optimize P(ic) and P(si) at the expense of #apps. The 50 approach optimizes only #apps because it assumes P(ic) is low, and disregards P(si). Especially P(si) is very important because the interview's purpose is to determine that you're a good match for them. If they're just another company you spammed an application out to, that becomes very obvious. The ~5 companies approach forces you to have already selected them because you think there's a solid business case for them to hire you. And you can make that case during both your initial contact and the interview, thus maximizing P(ic) and P(si). > 999 times out of 1000 you don't have a clue to a company's current business needs just by looking at public information I'd say it's more like 9/10, but that absolutely makes the case for the ~5 company approach. You're filtering out the ones that have a poor recruiting process. It takes a lot of time to put together a good application and you have to focus on companies that will not only be responsive but follow through all the way to the hiring decision. So focus on companies that make it clear what they do and what the position entails will tend to maximize P(ic) and P(si).