11 ms·

My secret Hobby: Applying for jobs

187 points by irrlichthn 15y ago

Peroni 15y ago
These companies don't notice that in this way, the good people a driven away, and only the desperate will apply. It's a catch-22. Without this process, every man & his dog will apply for the job causing the company to have to filter through literally hundreds of applications in order to find appropriate candidates. Those that actually take the time to tolerate the process obviously consider themselves suitable and do really want the job. As a Tech Recruiter, I'm generally the front line for job applications and I'll give you stats from my most recent role: Python Dev- London - Circa £45k Applications: 48 * 36 highly irrelevant and inappropriate candidates that were blatantly just clicking 'apply' on every job they found. * 6 applications with no CV attached. * 6 potentially relevant candidates. * Out of the 6 potentials that I spoke to over the phone and face to face, only 2 were worth submitting directly to the client. These stats are pretty much the norm for most of the roles I advertise.
- mootothemax 15y ago
  Without this process, every man & his dog will apply for the job causing the company to have to filter through literally hundreds of applications in order to find appropriate candidates Shouldn't that be the point of tech recruitment agents, though? It used to drive me mad when recruitment agents would phone up, ask for 25%, then email me two "top" CVs which bore zero relevance to the jobs previously advertised. Out of the 6 potentials that I spoke to over the phone and face to face, only 2 were worth submitting directly to the client. You sounds like the exception that proves the rule ;)
  - Peroni 15y ago
    Shouldn't that be the point of tech recruitment agents, though? Absolutely. You engage us to be your personal filter. We shield you from the deluge and provide you access to the handful of suitable candidates. I'm not surprised your recruiters are sending you irrelevant candidates. It's something I ranted about at length in my most recent blog post, link in my profile. You sounds like the exception that proves the rule ;) Most recruiters do exactly the same, the difference is the recruiters who actually understand the requirement, your needs & the technology involved will send you some decent CV's from the steaming pile of rubbish they receive, the 'salesman' recruiters will send you two CV's that appear to be relevant or are a high keyword match against the job spec and don't have a fundamental grasp of your needs.
- mikle 15y ago
  I think this is a compelling reason not to use sites where you can simply click apply to be considered for a job.
- nirvana 15y ago
  Please tell me about the "highly irrelevant and inappropriate candidates" you were seeing. Were you seeing people whose previous job experience was: Receptionist, Typist, Journalist, Janitor, Taxi Driver, etc? Or were you seeing web developers who never mentioned python on their resume? The reason I ask is, the majority of the times I've been screened by recruiters, they clearly were unable to tell what was relevant and what was not. EG: Thinking you're not qualified because you worked with a different version of a database the employer uses, even though SQL hasn't changed between versions and you probably usually shouldn't be writing SQL anyway in your code. The inability to screen properly gave me the distinct impressions that those who were filtering me out were incompetent because they were being arbitrary, and those who weren't filtering me out just had low standards (they didn't ask better questions.) In the end, I was the one who filtered me out of inappropriate jobs because I could tell by their descriptions (if they let me see the job description rather than rambling on about how they need a "ninja coder to take their B2B accounting software to the next level"). Do you use any software to screen the applications for appropriateness? I know that keywords likely would only work to get rid of the 36 (or would they? Did they all say "python" on their resume?) Would machine learning or bayesian techniques possibly work better?
  - Peroni 15y ago
    I don't use any artificial means of filtering candidates. If I receive 48 applications, I read 48 CV's. There were a large number of graduates with zero commercial experience and zero open source contributions as well as a number of foreign candidates with completely unrelated careers simply looking for a job in London. There were also a number of underqualified candidates and people with strong careers but zero commercial or practical experience with Python.
    - mironathetin 15y ago
      Well, for a good programmer it is trivial to learn Python, and especially Python, in a very (!) short time.
      - noonat 15y ago
- nknight 15y ago
  But those statistics by themselves do nothing to counter one of the key points. How do you actually know they were irrelevant? How do you know the 4 potentials weren't worth submitting? Your commenting history suggests you might have a clue what you're doing, but this comment taken by itself could easily be from a recruiter that's part of the problem and doesn't know it. Lord knows I've never (in the US) personally encountered a recruiter that really understood the position they were trying to fill.
  - Peroni 15y ago
    How do you actually know they were irrelevant? How do you know the 4 potentials weren't worth submitting? I'm a former developer. I'm currently teaching myself Python. I listen and understand my clients needs. I'm not afraid to ask a client or candidate to elaborate on a point I don't understand. Essentially I don't think that it's necessary for a recruiter to claim to know everything about every technology as I believe from experience that a lot of employers find honesty refreshing.
- ay 15y ago
  If you're looking for the coding jobs, ask them if: - they have a github profile - they have a stackoverflow profile - they have a linkedin profile (the latter will go for a CV - I actually used it when one $reasonably_big_and_known_company called me up wanting to hire me and wanted me to write a CV - I told them to use my linkedin profile, and it worked all right). Arguably this is not a 1:1 relation - since there might be a lot of good programmers that do not bother to communicate much externally. But if they have the presence, then you will be well able to judge their quality without having to ask them a single question. (I silently assume you can read code/judge programming questions - if not, then my blurb is of not much use indeed)
- nickthedart 15y ago
  IMHO one thing the client needs to do to get a decent Python programmer apply is either relocate that job somewhere cheaper, or pay significantly more. In London, too much of that £45k is going to be swallowed up by accommodation costs.
  - Peroni 15y ago
    You'd be surprised. £45k is a pretty standard salary for Python Devs as well as Ruby Devs which are much harder to find.
    - gaius 15y ago
      For better or worse, there are fairly low barriers to entry for Python devs, e.g. doing Django. Same with Ruby and RoR. The higher the barriers to entry, the higher the salary.
TamDenholm 15y ago
I have the same hobby, i'm a php contractor but sometimes go to job interviews for permanent positions even though its extremely unlikely i'll ever accept a permanent position, but i do it for the experience of interviewing and to become aware of the companies in my area. Also, its always nice to get an offer of a job sometimes.
- rickmb 15y ago
  Funny, as a company we sometimes invite contractors to interview for much the same reasons. It's good to know the freelancers that are around, and especially if they'll be able to fit into our existing teams, even though we rarely make use of that option. And it helps with long-term recruiting, since contractors regularly give up being self-employed for a variety of reasons. We are always completely upfront about it though.
martincmartin 15y ago
I actually look for jobs with a thorough interview process, and having to spend a few hours solving a puzzle, on my own time, before an in-person interview, is a plus. It means the other people I'll be working with have been through the same thing, and there'll be a higher percentage of good programmers among them.
- StavrosK 15y ago
  Is your reasoning that other good programmers have nothing better to do than solve puzzles for a few hours? I have so little time to myself that I can't spend hours solving each little puzzle a HR department comes up with...
  - anonymoushn 15y ago
    I've never been asked to solve a puzzle by an HR department, but I have always been asked to solve a puzzle. Have you been asked to solve puzzles that were written by HR, and how could you tell?
    - StavrosK 15y ago
      I meant it in the broader sense of "the people who are interviewing me". I have been asked to program a simple blog system with various features, which seemed like a rather bad use of my time. That same system was implemented on the company's website later on, which didn't make me feel any better. To top it all off, they never even replied.
      - anonymoushn 15y ago
        What is your preferred way of determining whether a candidate is a good programmer?
        StavrosK 15y ago
        I talk to them, ask them to show me some code samples they've written or projects they've developed in their spare time. If someone tells me they've written and launched an entire product with thousands of users by themselves, it's a bit counterproductive for me to ask them to code up a blog.
Triumvark 15y ago
> So about once in a year I [apply to] an advertised programmers job... This doesn't sound frequent enough to really extrapolate anything about trends. Maybe he meant once a month?
- mtogo 15y ago
  If he didn't apply for any jobs he would be mostly completely out of the loop as far as the world of working for someone else goes. If he had or wanted to get a job at some point, the knowledge of current practices would help a lot compared to never having interviewed in years.
maayank 15y ago
"These companies don't notice that in this way, the good people a driven away, and only the desperate will apply." This. One of the reasons I chose my last employer (SAP, or more specifically, SAP Research) was their no bullshit, yet very thorough, recruitment process. Compare that with my <A very, very, well known software corp> experience, where the phone call interview with HR went like that: HR drone: "So, what's your degree?" Me: "Mathematics." [didn't you read my resume?] HR: "Oh... well... Most of the people working here have CS degrees." Me: "Ah, well, my last job title was 'Computer Science researcher' and before that I had several years of experience as a programmer, so I think I'll fit" [apparently not!] HR: "Yes, but do you know algorithms?" Me: bangs head on wall Sorry, no matter how reputable your company is, if that's the recruitment process then I can do better.
- Peroni 15y ago
  Let me shed some prespective. I can absolutely guarantee you that the actual hiring manager briefed the HR department on the job spec and had to dumb it down significantly. The summary would have been something along the lines of 'Ideally the perfect candidate will have a CS degree from a major University as strong algorithmic knowledge is a fundamental requirement for the role.' HR would then interpret this as: 1: Must have CS Degree 2: Must know algorithms. 3: Only CS people study & understand algorithms. 4: Refer to step 1.
  - jonnathanson 15y ago
    This. Ironically, it helps to think of the HR screening process as a really dumb algorithm. The HR staffer likely has little to no understanding of how to ferret out "knowledge of algorithms," (or any other job skill, for that matter). So he defaults to a list of keywords or phrases -- interpreted very literally -- from a job description received from the hiring manager. His internal logic is pretty much driven by two directives: 1: If a keyword or phrase is in the job description, a successful applicant MUST have it on his resume. (Word for word, preferably). 2: Anything on a candidate's resume that is not on the job description is irrelevant. In fairness, there is some legitimate value to the HR screening process. It is a filter. A dumb filter, but a filter that the hiring manager doesn't have time to run on X hundred (or Y thousand) resumes. Some HR filters are designed to screen out resumes that don't contain the right keywords. Others are designed to select for resumes that match all the right keywords. Either way, the effect is similar. Of course, such a process can (and does) weed out a lot of very talented, very qualified people. The trick is learning how to game the filter. The filter penalizes creative or unusual word choices. The filter flags candidates who reference someone they've met or spoken to at the company (doubly so if that person is the actual referrer). The filter rewards fidelity to the letter of the job description. Tailor your cover letter and resume accordingly.
petercooper 15y ago
I used to do this back in the late 90s! I was also self employed and happy with it, but the added ingredient was overenthusiastic recruitment agencies who wanted me to go. I had one particularly eager guy who wouldn't leave me alone and got me to take an interview at the BBC for Director of Online Media or some similar high flying title (the role was not as significant then as it is now).. I was wildly inexperienced and only 18 but I ended up spending a few hours in BBC Television Centre and it was quite the day out ;-) The recruiter never contacted me again after that.
onan_barbarian 15y ago
For some reason this story reminds me of one of the Arabian Nights stories, which, in the translation I read, began: "Know, my friends, when I was no more than eight years old, I had already cultivated the remarkable habit of telling one really big lie per year". I wonder if these hobbies could be combined? Indulging in these kind of pranks seems almost justifiable given the "can they really be serious" shenanigans perpetrated upon those of our trade by the interviewers and recruiters. I am polishing my resume, with special emphasis on my glory days at the Austrian Naval Academy.
maeon3 15y ago
It seems to be some bizarre tradition in this country (US) to kick applicants in the nuts every time they apply, call or inquire about a employment position at a company. My theory is that if every company does this, then the current body of employees will work harder to stay out of that prison of unemployment, where everyone kicks you when you are down. I am in support of all the good programmers everywhere applying to jobs without intending to take them, and generally treating the system that hires you like crap. So next time you are unemployed and you are treated badly, you'll at least know why they are doing so.
mathattack 15y ago
Interesting observations. As someone who has been in hiring positions over several years, the signal to noise ratio in recruiting consistently goes down. On-line recruiting used to be the domain of the talented. Now that everyone is on-line, the professional job-searchers have more time on their hands. Let's say the unqualified outnumber the qualified by 5 to 1. They're also job-searching on company time, so they send out 5 times as many resumes as the qualified. Their resumes then outnumber the qualified by 25 to 1. This gives you the ratios that Peroni sees. What's hard - very hard - is that good engineers aren't great at writing job descriptions that are useful to HR recruiters. Conversely, many good HR recruiters still don't understand technical job descriptions. In the end, this is why the best recruiting method still seems to be, "Ask your best person who their most capable friend is."
rch 15y ago
Going through the motions of applying for jobs also helped me keep my resume up to date and polished. Now that I've been in the same place for a few years I've let that slide - time to get back in the habit maybe?
neebz 15y ago
I applied to a London based digital agency. In return they sent me a 10-page document (!) asking me stuff like what were my previous three addresses ? It was like filling up a visa application.
- yuvipanda 15y ago
  Was the position good enough for you to fill out that form?
  - mdaniel 15y ago
    There are no positions which are good enough to complete such a form. Like a poster mentioned elsewhere: the interview process is also a strong indicator of the internal atmosphere, too. I don't want to work for any company which believes such a form is a good idea.
    - yuvipanda 15y ago
      Some part of me wants to believe that it is a weed out on the other side - 'if you value your time so low as to fill out these forms, we know we can pay you jackshit and get away with it'.
peteretep 15y ago
I'm really happy where I'm contracting at the moment, but like to apply for challenging-looking roles. Two big benefits here: a) If somewhere offers you a lot money, you can take that back to your current employer. I've had a 30% payrise from that before on my day rate. b) Slightly bigger companies with big pockets are often hiring 'unofficially'. That means if they know you and like you, they're often willing to employ you. If you've applied for a job, but turned it down while being very very positive about the company, you've got a set of contacts there to email when you current contract doesn't get renewed...
BornInTheUSSR 15y ago
From the comments: I am a human resources manager, and I like to call people in for interview. We do not have any openings but I just like to call them, give them 1-2 tests, make them sweat, then never call them again. It is more fun than going at the interview, you should give it a shot. :) Daniel - 10 08 11 - 13:10
- megamark16 15y ago
  I'm pretty sure that the commenter was being facetious, but I have worked at a company where they actually did this. They always had job openings posted on their website, and they would bring people in for interviews, even though they weren't hiring and had no positions to place those individuals in. I remember the CEO said "that way we'll have a pool of candidates to pull from if we decide to hire someone". Needless to say, I never referred any of my friends.
  - eavc 15y ago
    This is also commonly done when the law stipulates that a search must be done broadly and fairly. They know they are going to promote the guy already at their company, but they are bound to do a full search anyway.
  - BornInTheUSSR 15y ago
    I thought it was pretty funny given the article title
matan_a 15y ago
I've been through this as well for a very senior role: Interviewer: "Do you know X?" Me: "Yes" Interviewer: "Great, do you know Y?" Me: "Sure" (starting to get suspicious) Interviewer: "Nice, how about Z?" Me: "Aha" (not believing this) Interviewer: "When can you start?" .... This is the opposite side of the coin. This quick-fire hiring is scary and detrimental. What would that tell you about the company? :)
int3rnaut 15y ago
While I think it's great to stay in the rhythm of things and really get your interview skills down pat, to me the idea of applying for a job when you don't need one is a bit arrogant and selfish. In the grand scheme of things you took a potential interview and maybe a job away from someone else who might have really needed it. It's great that people want to help themselves but doing the right thing and being nice can go a long way--if you really want to brush up on your interviewing or just not lose touch of the corporate game there are a lot of career centers out there just itching to give you tips and encouragement. I'm not taking away from your message about companies and their hiring practices in general but don't forget about what really matters.

187 points by irrlichthn 15y ago

These companies don't notice that in this way, the good people a driven away, and only the desperate will apply. It's a catch-22. Without this process, every man & his dog will apply for the job causing the company to have to filter through literally hundreds of applications in order to find appropriate candidates. Those that actually take the time to tolerate the process obviously consider themselves suitable and do really want the job. As a Tech Recruiter, I'm generally the front line for job applications and I'll give you stats from my most recent role: Python Dev- London - Circa £45k Applications: 48 * 36 highly irrelevant and inappropriate candidates that were blatantly just clicking 'apply' on every job they found. * 6 applications with no CV attached. * 6 potentially relevant candidates. * Out of the 6 potentials that I spoke to over the phone and face to face, only 2 were worth submitting directly to the client. These stats are pretty much the norm for most of the roles I advertise.

mootothemax 15y ago
Without this process, every man & his dog will apply for the job causing the company to have to filter through literally hundreds of applications in order to find appropriate candidates Shouldn't that be the point of tech recruitment agents, though? It used to drive me mad when recruitment agents would phone up, ask for 25%, then email me two "top" CVs which bore zero relevance to the jobs previously advertised. Out of the 6 potentials that I spoke to over the phone and face to face, only 2 were worth submitting directly to the client. You sounds like the exception that proves the rule ;)
- Peroni 15y ago
  Shouldn't that be the point of tech recruitment agents, though? Absolutely. You engage us to be your personal filter. We shield you from the deluge and provide you access to the handful of suitable candidates. I'm not surprised your recruiters are sending you irrelevant candidates. It's something I ranted about at length in my most recent blog post, link in my profile. You sounds like the exception that proves the rule ;) Most recruiters do exactly the same, the difference is the recruiters who actually understand the requirement, your needs & the technology involved will send you some decent CV's from the steaming pile of rubbish they receive, the 'salesman' recruiters will send you two CV's that appear to be relevant or are a high keyword match against the job spec and don't have a fundamental grasp of your needs.
mikle 15y ago
I think this is a compelling reason not to use sites where you can simply click apply to be considered for a job.
nirvana 15y ago
Please tell me about the "highly irrelevant and inappropriate candidates" you were seeing. Were you seeing people whose previous job experience was: Receptionist, Typist, Journalist, Janitor, Taxi Driver, etc? Or were you seeing web developers who never mentioned python on their resume? The reason I ask is, the majority of the times I've been screened by recruiters, they clearly were unable to tell what was relevant and what was not. EG: Thinking you're not qualified because you worked with a different version of a database the employer uses, even though SQL hasn't changed between versions and you probably usually shouldn't be writing SQL anyway in your code. The inability to screen properly gave me the distinct impressions that those who were filtering me out were incompetent because they were being arbitrary, and those who weren't filtering me out just had low standards (they didn't ask better questions.) In the end, I was the one who filtered me out of inappropriate jobs because I could tell by their descriptions (if they let me see the job description rather than rambling on about how they need a "ninja coder to take their B2B accounting software to the next level"). Do you use any software to screen the applications for appropriateness? I know that keywords likely would only work to get rid of the 36 (or would they? Did they all say "python" on their resume?) Would machine learning or bayesian techniques possibly work better?
- Peroni 15y ago
  I don't use any artificial means of filtering candidates. If I receive 48 applications, I read 48 CV's. There were a large number of graduates with zero commercial experience and zero open source contributions as well as a number of foreign candidates with completely unrelated careers simply looking for a job in London. There were also a number of underqualified candidates and people with strong careers but zero commercial or practical experience with Python.
  - mironathetin 15y ago
    Well, for a good programmer it is trivial to learn Python, and especially Python, in a very (!) short time.
    - noonat 15y ago
nknight 15y ago
But those statistics by themselves do nothing to counter one of the key points. How do you actually know they were irrelevant? How do you know the 4 potentials weren't worth submitting? Your commenting history suggests you might have a clue what you're doing, but this comment taken by itself could easily be from a recruiter that's part of the problem and doesn't know it. Lord knows I've never (in the US) personally encountered a recruiter that really understood the position they were trying to fill.
- Peroni 15y ago
  How do you actually know they were irrelevant? How do you know the 4 potentials weren't worth submitting? I'm a former developer. I'm currently teaching myself Python. I listen and understand my clients needs. I'm not afraid to ask a client or candidate to elaborate on a point I don't understand. Essentially I don't think that it's necessary for a recruiter to claim to know everything about every technology as I believe from experience that a lot of employers find honesty refreshing.
ay 15y ago
If you're looking for the coding jobs, ask them if: - they have a github profile - they have a stackoverflow profile - they have a linkedin profile (the latter will go for a CV - I actually used it when one $reasonably_big_and_known_company called me up wanting to hire me and wanted me to write a CV - I told them to use my linkedin profile, and it worked all right). Arguably this is not a 1:1 relation - since there might be a lot of good programmers that do not bother to communicate much externally. But if they have the presence, then you will be well able to judge their quality without having to ask them a single question. (I silently assume you can read code/judge programming questions - if not, then my blurb is of not much use indeed)
nickthedart 15y ago
IMHO one thing the client needs to do to get a decent Python programmer apply is either relocate that job somewhere cheaper, or pay significantly more. In London, too much of that £45k is going to be swallowed up by accommodation costs.
- Peroni 15y ago
  You'd be surprised. £45k is a pretty standard salary for Python Devs as well as Ruby Devs which are much harder to find.
  - gaius 15y ago
    For better or worse, there are fairly low barriers to entry for Python devs, e.g. doing Django. Same with Ruby and RoR. The higher the barriers to entry, the higher the salary.

TamDenholm 15y ago

I have the same hobby, i'm a php contractor but sometimes go to job interviews for permanent positions even though its extremely unlikely i'll ever accept a permanent position, but i do it for the experience of interviewing and to become aware of the companies in my area. Also, its always nice to get an offer of a job sometimes.

rickmb 15y ago
Funny, as a company we sometimes invite contractors to interview for much the same reasons. It's good to know the freelancers that are around, and especially if they'll be able to fit into our existing teams, even though we rarely make use of that option. And it helps with long-term recruiting, since contractors regularly give up being self-employed for a variety of reasons. We are always completely upfront about it though.

martincmartin 15y ago

I actually look for jobs with a thorough interview process, and having to spend a few hours solving a puzzle, on my own time, before an in-person interview, is a plus. It means the other people I'll be working with have been through the same thing, and there'll be a higher percentage of good programmers among them.

StavrosK 15y ago
Is your reasoning that other good programmers have nothing better to do than solve puzzles for a few hours? I have so little time to myself that I can't spend hours solving each little puzzle a HR department comes up with...
- anonymoushn 15y ago
  I've never been asked to solve a puzzle by an HR department, but I have always been asked to solve a puzzle. Have you been asked to solve puzzles that were written by HR, and how could you tell?
  - StavrosK 15y ago
    I meant it in the broader sense of "the people who are interviewing me". I have been asked to program a simple blog system with various features, which seemed like a rather bad use of my time. That same system was implemented on the company's website later on, which didn't make me feel any better. To top it all off, they never even replied.
    - anonymoushn 15y ago
      What is your preferred way of determining whether a candidate is a good programmer?
      - StavrosK 15y ago
        I talk to them, ask them to show me some code samples they've written or projects they've developed in their spare time. If someone tells me they've written and launched an entire product with thousands of users by themselves, it's a bit counterproductive for me to ask them to code up a blog.

Triumvark 15y ago

> So about once in a year I [apply to] an advertised programmers job... This doesn't sound frequent enough to really extrapolate anything about trends. Maybe he meant once a month?

mtogo 15y ago
If he didn't apply for any jobs he would be mostly completely out of the loop as far as the world of working for someone else goes. If he had or wanted to get a job at some point, the knowledge of current practices would help a lot compared to never having interviewed in years.

maayank 15y ago

"These companies don't notice that in this way, the good people a driven away, and only the desperate will apply." This. One of the reasons I chose my last employer (SAP, or more specifically, SAP Research) was their no bullshit, yet very thorough, recruitment process. Compare that with my <A very, very, well known software corp> experience, where the phone call interview with HR went like that: HR drone: "So, what's your degree?" Me: "Mathematics." [didn't you read my resume?] HR: "Oh... well... Most of the people working here have CS degrees." Me: "Ah, well, my last job title was 'Computer Science researcher' and before that I had several years of experience as a programmer, so I think I'll fit" [apparently not!] HR: "Yes, but do you know algorithms?" Me: bangs head on wall Sorry, no matter how reputable your company is, if that's the recruitment process then I can do better.

Peroni 15y ago
Let me shed some prespective. I can absolutely guarantee you that the actual hiring manager briefed the HR department on the job spec and had to dumb it down significantly. The summary would have been something along the lines of 'Ideally the perfect candidate will have a CS degree from a major University as strong algorithmic knowledge is a fundamental requirement for the role.' HR would then interpret this as: 1: Must have CS Degree 2: Must know algorithms. 3: Only CS people study & understand algorithms. 4: Refer to step 1.
- jonnathanson 15y ago
  This. Ironically, it helps to think of the HR screening process as a really dumb algorithm. The HR staffer likely has little to no understanding of how to ferret out "knowledge of algorithms," (or any other job skill, for that matter). So he defaults to a list of keywords or phrases -- interpreted very literally -- from a job description received from the hiring manager. His internal logic is pretty much driven by two directives: 1: If a keyword or phrase is in the job description, a successful applicant MUST have it on his resume. (Word for word, preferably). 2: Anything on a candidate's resume that is not on the job description is irrelevant. In fairness, there is some legitimate value to the HR screening process. It is a filter. A dumb filter, but a filter that the hiring manager doesn't have time to run on X hundred (or Y thousand) resumes. Some HR filters are designed to screen out resumes that don't contain the right keywords. Others are designed to select for resumes that match all the right keywords. Either way, the effect is similar. Of course, such a process can (and does) weed out a lot of very talented, very qualified people. The trick is learning how to game the filter. The filter penalizes creative or unusual word choices. The filter flags candidates who reference someone they've met or spoken to at the company (doubly so if that person is the actual referrer). The filter rewards fidelity to the letter of the job description. Tailor your cover letter and resume accordingly.

petercooper 15y ago

I used to do this back in the late 90s! I was also self employed and happy with it, but the added ingredient was overenthusiastic recruitment agencies who wanted me to go. I had one particularly eager guy who wouldn't leave me alone and got me to take an interview at the BBC for Director of Online Media or some similar high flying title (the role was not as significant then as it is now).. I was wildly inexperienced and only 18 but I ended up spending a few hours in BBC Television Centre and it was quite the day out ;-) The recruiter never contacted me again after that.

onan_barbarian 15y ago

For some reason this story reminds me of one of the Arabian Nights stories, which, in the translation I read, began: "Know, my friends, when I was no more than eight years old, I had already cultivated the remarkable habit of telling one really big lie per year". I wonder if these hobbies could be combined? Indulging in these kind of pranks seems almost justifiable given the "can they really be serious" shenanigans perpetrated upon those of our trade by the interviewers and recruiters. I am polishing my resume, with special emphasis on my glory days at the Austrian Naval Academy.

maeon3 15y ago

It seems to be some bizarre tradition in this country (US) to kick applicants in the nuts every time they apply, call or inquire about a employment position at a company. My theory is that if every company does this, then the current body of employees will work harder to stay out of that prison of unemployment, where everyone kicks you when you are down. I am in support of all the good programmers everywhere applying to jobs without intending to take them, and generally treating the system that hires you like crap. So next time you are unemployed and you are treated badly, you'll at least know why they are doing so.

mathattack 15y ago

Interesting observations. As someone who has been in hiring positions over several years, the signal to noise ratio in recruiting consistently goes down. On-line recruiting used to be the domain of the talented. Now that everyone is on-line, the professional job-searchers have more time on their hands. Let's say the unqualified outnumber the qualified by 5 to 1. They're also job-searching on company time, so they send out 5 times as many resumes as the qualified. Their resumes then outnumber the qualified by 25 to 1. This gives you the ratios that Peroni sees. What's hard - very hard - is that good engineers aren't great at writing job descriptions that are useful to HR recruiters. Conversely, many good HR recruiters still don't understand technical job descriptions. In the end, this is why the best recruiting method still seems to be, "Ask your best person who their most capable friend is."

rch 15y ago

Going through the motions of applying for jobs also helped me keep my resume up to date and polished. Now that I've been in the same place for a few years I've let that slide - time to get back in the habit maybe?

neebz 15y ago

I applied to a London based digital agency. In return they sent me a 10-page document (!) asking me stuff like what were my previous three addresses ? It was like filling up a visa application.

yuvipanda 15y ago
Was the position good enough for you to fill out that form?
- mdaniel 15y ago
  There are no positions which are good enough to complete such a form. Like a poster mentioned elsewhere: the interview process is also a strong indicator of the internal atmosphere, too. I don't want to work for any company which believes such a form is a good idea.
  - yuvipanda 15y ago
    Some part of me wants to believe that it is a weed out on the other side - 'if you value your time so low as to fill out these forms, we know we can pay you jackshit and get away with it'.

peteretep 15y ago

I'm really happy where I'm contracting at the moment, but like to apply for challenging-looking roles. Two big benefits here: a) If somewhere offers you a lot money, you can take that back to your current employer. I've had a 30% payrise from that before on my day rate. b) Slightly bigger companies with big pockets are often hiring 'unofficially'. That means if they know you and like you, they're often willing to employ you. If you've applied for a job, but turned it down while being very very positive about the company, you've got a set of contacts there to email when you current contract doesn't get renewed...

BornInTheUSSR 15y ago

From the comments: I am a human resources manager, and I like to call people in for interview. We do not have any openings but I just like to call them, give them 1-2 tests, make them sweat, then never call them again. It is more fun than going at the interview, you should give it a shot. :) Daniel - 10 08 11 - 13:10

megamark16 15y ago
I'm pretty sure that the commenter was being facetious, but I have worked at a company where they actually did this. They always had job openings posted on their website, and they would bring people in for interviews, even though they weren't hiring and had no positions to place those individuals in. I remember the CEO said "that way we'll have a pool of candidates to pull from if we decide to hire someone". Needless to say, I never referred any of my friends.
- eavc 15y ago
  This is also commonly done when the law stipulates that a search must be done broadly and fairly. They know they are going to promote the guy already at their company, but they are bound to do a full search anyway.
- BornInTheUSSR 15y ago
  I thought it was pretty funny given the article title

matan_a 15y ago

I've been through this as well for a very senior role: Interviewer: "Do you know X?" Me: "Yes" Interviewer: "Great, do you know Y?" Me: "Sure" (starting to get suspicious) Interviewer: "Nice, how about Z?" Me: "Aha" (not believing this) Interviewer: "When can you start?" .... This is the opposite side of the coin. This quick-fire hiring is scary and detrimental. What would that tell you about the company? :)

int3rnaut 15y ago

While I think it's great to stay in the rhythm of things and really get your interview skills down pat, to me the idea of applying for a job when you don't need one is a bit arrogant and selfish. In the grand scheme of things you took a potential interview and maybe a job away from someone else who might have really needed it. It's great that people want to help themselves but doing the right thing and being nice can go a long way--if you really want to brush up on your interviewing or just not lose touch of the corporate game there are a lot of career centers out there just itching to give you tips and encouragement. I'm not taking away from your message about companies and their hiring practices in general but don't forget about what really matters.