4 ms·

Rejection is incredibly difficult to deal with. I suspect some people will say they are immune to it, but (anecdotal example) I've been rejected from hundreds o

Rejection is incredibly difficult to deal with. I suspect some people will say they are immune to it, but (anecdotal example) I've been rejected from hundreds of jobs over the past 3 years and every one hurts a little. I felt it never got easier to deal with rejection, but it got easier to interview and move on. Perhaps it's not the rejection, but the energy in creating the next steps I need to take (more resumes, taking classes, new career, therapy, etc).

Koshkin 7y ago
> rejected from hundreds of jobs Sounds extreme. Were you applying to random jobs?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- adamredwoods 7y ago
  You're right, it was probably only around two hundred or so jobs I applied to with 50% response/rejection rate over the past 3 years.
- thayne 7y ago
  Unfortunately, for many recent college graduates, it's not.
- stakhanov 7y ago
  It's not extreme at all. Companies are treating it as a numbers game, which is part of what the article is about. The flipside of the coin is that candidates are forced into treating it as a numbers game too. For example: As a candidate you might submit a resume and get an automated "Thank you, we'll be in touch". There's a large variety of reasons why you might face a very low probability that someone will indeed be in touch that have nothing to do with you. The most common is that you're just too late in the process. They might already have dozens of viable candidates in later stages. They are being economical about their interviewers' time, thinking: Well, the probability that all of those later-stage candidates will end up getting terminated is low, so we're not doing first-round interviews for now. But they are not being economical about expectations created in candidates' minds about the likelihood of getting an offer. They've simply defined the process to say: We pull the advertising after the role has been filled, because there is always the chance that we will have to go back to candidates in earlier rounds. There might be even more extreme cases. Not saying that this is particularly common, but imagine a company has decided they need a diversity hire, say hiring a woman to an all-male tech team. All applications by men may be dead on arrival. They may not want to send out rejection letters so as not to establish the pattern. Or the role may have already been filled and there may simply be clerical error or clerical laziness to blame about why the advertising hasn't been pulled yet. So, from a candidate's point of view: "We will be in touch" means almost nothing. Having come across a job ad means less than nothing. Your calculation is simply going to be: I get one human contact out of every ten times I submit a resume. I get one firm offer out of every ten times I get a human contact. I'm shooting for three firm offers to choose from. So that means I have to submit my resume 300 times. Consequently you can't afford to be all too picky. You just submit to everything that could even remotely be a match. You only start putting real brain power into thinking about whether you actually want to work there in later stages of the process. It's a sad state of affairs, but it's just the world we live in now.
  - rightbyte 7y ago
    Sounds like me on Tinder. There is no use thinking to much before first contact anyway. I have to spam and see what happens. Luckely my experience in job searching has not involved ghosting or spamming. Is that an US thing? Or is "job dating" less parallell in smaller cities or countries?
  - crispyambulance 7y ago
    It's only a "numbers game" if you treat it as such by "shot-gunning" your applications. Much better to exercise your professional network (in the flesh or online). The whole point of web-based application process is to weed out as many candidates as possible. If you can skip that step and first make contact with a human, the odds are much better and it's less work and stress for everyone.
    - pc86 7y ago
      I am on my 7th or 8th job now and have only applied to probably 12 in my entire life. Tailoring resumes to specific postings, and trying to find someone at the company you have some sort of connection with, are both pretty damn important unless, as you say, you're shot-gunning an identical resume to every company within 50 miles.
    - stakhanov 7y ago
      ...there are plenty of situations that will render your social network useless, for example most of your network might be academics and you might have decided to leave academia. Most of your network might be in companies doing onsite-only in a geographical area you've moved away from. Most of your network might be less-well-paid than you. (So: the jobs you would want to apply for are with hiring managers that your friends don't know and have no influence over and if they did, they would use the opportunity for themselves rather than someone else). -- In my experience, networking just doesn't work as well as business school ideology would have you believe it does for various reasons that I'm going to try to sum up by quoting a Groucho Marx joke: "I'd never join a club that would have someone like me for a member."
- NaCl_af 7y ago
  This year alone I’ve applied to over 800 C# or .Net related positions and have yet to get any offer. It’s incredibly difficult for some of us unfortunately. Precisely 886 if anyone was interested
  - xwowsersx 7y ago
    I do wonder if you're spreading yourself too thin and not focusing on nailing one or two jobs you're really interested in by applying to so many places. I get that it's a numbers game so I truly understand and salute the effort, but I wonder if being rejected from hundreds of jobs is pointing out that something needs to be adjusted. I recently spent a few months finding a job and landed one I'm really happy with. I'm happy to provide feedback and advice if you're interested. Contact details in my profile.
  - acollins1331 7y ago
    Your cover letter or interview skills must be terrible.
  - tjalfi 7y ago
    How popular is .NET in your market? Have you considered learning other technologies to enhance your skillset? I would recommend that you attend local user group meetings and talk to people. Weak social connections are an excellent source of referrals.
  - anongraddebt 7y ago
    Are having trouble getting interviews, getting offers, or both?
cygaril 7y ago
I agree that rejection is always tough. I spent a year manoeuvring to be made redundant from a job I wanted to leave (e.g. told my boss I wanted to go, made sure everything I did was covered by other people). And still, when they did finally let me go, the rejection did hurt quite a bit.
mewpmewp2 7y ago
Isn't rejection good in the long run? For me it gives clarity especially if there is feedback and it motivated me to try harder and care less.
- StavrosK 7y ago
  It's not better than not getting rejected, no.
lmilcin 7y ago
To be rejected from hundreds of jobs suggest you should reevaluate how you approach the entire problem. At the very basic level you should understand what are the expectations of the employer and whether you can fill those expectations. Try to find and talk to people at those positions you are applying to. Try to understand where you fall short.

Koshkin 7y ago

> rejected from hundreds of jobs Sounds extreme. Were you applying to random jobs?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
adamredwoods 7y ago
You're right, it was probably only around two hundred or so jobs I applied to with 50% response/rejection rate over the past 3 years.
thayne 7y ago
Unfortunately, for many recent college graduates, it's not.
stakhanov 7y ago
It's not extreme at all. Companies are treating it as a numbers game, which is part of what the article is about. The flipside of the coin is that candidates are forced into treating it as a numbers game too. For example: As a candidate you might submit a resume and get an automated "Thank you, we'll be in touch". There's a large variety of reasons why you might face a very low probability that someone will indeed be in touch that have nothing to do with you. The most common is that you're just too late in the process. They might already have dozens of viable candidates in later stages. They are being economical about their interviewers' time, thinking: Well, the probability that all of those later-stage candidates will end up getting terminated is low, so we're not doing first-round interviews for now. But they are not being economical about expectations created in candidates' minds about the likelihood of getting an offer. They've simply defined the process to say: We pull the advertising after the role has been filled, because there is always the chance that we will have to go back to candidates in earlier rounds. There might be even more extreme cases. Not saying that this is particularly common, but imagine a company has decided they need a diversity hire, say hiring a woman to an all-male tech team. All applications by men may be dead on arrival. They may not want to send out rejection letters so as not to establish the pattern. Or the role may have already been filled and there may simply be clerical error or clerical laziness to blame about why the advertising hasn't been pulled yet. So, from a candidate's point of view: "We will be in touch" means almost nothing. Having come across a job ad means less than nothing. Your calculation is simply going to be: I get one human contact out of every ten times I submit a resume. I get one firm offer out of every ten times I get a human contact. I'm shooting for three firm offers to choose from. So that means I have to submit my resume 300 times. Consequently you can't afford to be all too picky. You just submit to everything that could even remotely be a match. You only start putting real brain power into thinking about whether you actually want to work there in later stages of the process. It's a sad state of affairs, but it's just the world we live in now.
- rightbyte 7y ago
  Sounds like me on Tinder. There is no use thinking to much before first contact anyway. I have to spam and see what happens. Luckely my experience in job searching has not involved ghosting or spamming. Is that an US thing? Or is "job dating" less parallell in smaller cities or countries?
- crispyambulance 7y ago
  It's only a "numbers game" if you treat it as such by "shot-gunning" your applications. Much better to exercise your professional network (in the flesh or online). The whole point of web-based application process is to weed out as many candidates as possible. If you can skip that step and first make contact with a human, the odds are much better and it's less work and stress for everyone.
  - pc86 7y ago
    I am on my 7th or 8th job now and have only applied to probably 12 in my entire life. Tailoring resumes to specific postings, and trying to find someone at the company you have some sort of connection with, are both pretty damn important unless, as you say, you're shot-gunning an identical resume to every company within 50 miles.
  - stakhanov 7y ago
    ...there are plenty of situations that will render your social network useless, for example most of your network might be academics and you might have decided to leave academia. Most of your network might be in companies doing onsite-only in a geographical area you've moved away from. Most of your network might be less-well-paid than you. (So: the jobs you would want to apply for are with hiring managers that your friends don't know and have no influence over and if they did, they would use the opportunity for themselves rather than someone else). -- In my experience, networking just doesn't work as well as business school ideology would have you believe it does for various reasons that I'm going to try to sum up by quoting a Groucho Marx joke: "I'd never join a club that would have someone like me for a member."
NaCl_af 7y ago
This year alone I’ve applied to over 800 C# or .Net related positions and have yet to get any offer. It’s incredibly difficult for some of us unfortunately. Precisely 886 if anyone was interested
- xwowsersx 7y ago
  I do wonder if you're spreading yourself too thin and not focusing on nailing one or two jobs you're really interested in by applying to so many places. I get that it's a numbers game so I truly understand and salute the effort, but I wonder if being rejected from hundreds of jobs is pointing out that something needs to be adjusted. I recently spent a few months finding a job and landed one I'm really happy with. I'm happy to provide feedback and advice if you're interested. Contact details in my profile.
- acollins1331 7y ago
  Your cover letter or interview skills must be terrible.
- tjalfi 7y ago
  How popular is .NET in your market? Have you considered learning other technologies to enhance your skillset? I would recommend that you attend local user group meetings and talk to people. Weak social connections are an excellent source of referrals.
- anongraddebt 7y ago
  Are having trouble getting interviews, getting offers, or both?

cygaril 7y ago

I agree that rejection is always tough. I spent a year manoeuvring to be made redundant from a job I wanted to leave (e.g. told my boss I wanted to go, made sure everything I did was covered by other people). And still, when they did finally let me go, the rejection did hurt quite a bit.

mewpmewp2 7y ago

Isn't rejection good in the long run? For me it gives clarity especially if there is feedback and it motivated me to try harder and care less.

StavrosK 7y ago
It's not better than not getting rejected, no.

lmilcin 7y ago

To be rejected from hundreds of jobs suggest you should reevaluate how you approach the entire problem. At the very basic level you should understand what are the expectations of the employer and whether you can fill those expectations. Try to find and talk to people at those positions you are applying to. Try to understand where you fall short.