5 ms·

Hiring companies might prefer to just have this as a "hoop." There are, inevitably, some people who apply to a lot of jobs. Jobs they aren't qualified for. Low

by netcan 5y ago

Hiring companies might prefer to just have this as a "hoop." There are, inevitably, some people who apply to a lot of jobs. Jobs they aren't qualified for. Low intent applications, where the applicant isn't really that interested. Etc. Even if these are a minority, they apply to a lot of jobs. In any case, standardizing job applications (OP seems to be talking about application forms that are mostly resume-ish fields) just means more of these. More volume, more noise, probably not many more successful hires. There's kind of the same dynamic on the other side. Most workers don't love the idea of submitting an indexable resume for employers to leaf through. Sometimes a modicum of friction is helpful.

version_five 5y ago
They should ask for a cover letter. I agree that a hoop is needed - I recently posted a job on LinkedIn which has some kind of "click to apply" functionality, and it was clear that most of the applicants were just lazy clickers that probably hadn't even read the posting. On the other hand, if you make people jump through pointless procedural hoops, you're screening for people who are ok doing that. Ask for a cover letter, you get people who actually want the job and hear from them why they are interested.
- netcan 5y ago
  A cover letter is a screen too. A cover letter is a kind of writing contest, or maybe it's perceived that way by a candidate. Writing about yourself can be stressful. I'm not saying not to, ask for a cover letter. Just saying that this stuff is nuanced. Standardisation is great when you want very low friction. Job applications aren't frictionless, probably can't/shouldn't be. Some copy paste fields might be inelegant, but it's not changing the friction equation by much.
- jeroenhd 5y ago
  What's the point of a machine-compatible CV and a human-written cover letter? A human will need to sift through the same amount of information, except now they also need to read the long suck-up prose that you asked for. The honest truth about why they want the job for most people is that they provide what you need and that they enjoy things like eating, having a roof over their head, and fun things to do with what's left over of the money you pay them. Coming up with some drivel about how they've been entranced with Version_Five Inc's tech since they were twelve and how it's been their life-long dream to work with their famous Foobar Widget control language is a nice creative writing exercise but it hardly proves anything. If anything, it rewards lying and deceit to get hired quicker. Many very capable people suck at writing, even if they are truly driven and interested, especially in the computer science field. A cover letter is a great screen for a job that involves a lot of writing, but for most jobs writing is only a side activity that shouldn't be treated as the main objective.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
vanusa 5y ago
Sometimes a modicum of friction is helpful. The thing is it's far more than a "modicum" in practice. There was a recent Harvard Business School study out there revealing that these systems are poorly calibrated (and/or these companies don't know how to use them), and as a result millions of candidates are getting rejected for reasons that are either specious (6-month resume "gaps" that may be due to normal life circumstances) or utterly meaningless reasons (like failing to match certain word combinations). But I agree though that many HR departments would still love to use any tool that narrows the pool (however lossy the filter may be). Whether that is a good thing or bad thing or not is a matter of perspective. In my view, it puts HR's own value and utility into question.
- hu3 5y ago
  > 6-month resume "gaps" that may be due to normal life circumstances Yep, that's me taking care of my mother undergoing cancer treatment.

by netcan 5y ago

version_five 5y ago

They should ask for a cover letter. I agree that a hoop is needed - I recently posted a job on LinkedIn which has some kind of "click to apply" functionality, and it was clear that most of the applicants were just lazy clickers that probably hadn't even read the posting. On the other hand, if you make people jump through pointless procedural hoops, you're screening for people who are ok doing that. Ask for a cover letter, you get people who actually want the job and hear from them why they are interested.

netcan 5y ago
A cover letter is a screen too. A cover letter is a kind of writing contest, or maybe it's perceived that way by a candidate. Writing about yourself can be stressful. I'm not saying not to, ask for a cover letter. Just saying that this stuff is nuanced. Standardisation is great when you want very low friction. Job applications aren't frictionless, probably can't/shouldn't be. Some copy paste fields might be inelegant, but it's not changing the friction equation by much.
jeroenhd 5y ago
What's the point of a machine-compatible CV and a human-written cover letter? A human will need to sift through the same amount of information, except now they also need to read the long suck-up prose that you asked for. The honest truth about why they want the job for most people is that they provide what you need and that they enjoy things like eating, having a roof over their head, and fun things to do with what's left over of the money you pay them. Coming up with some drivel about how they've been entranced with Version_Five Inc's tech since they were twelve and how it's been their life-long dream to work with their famous Foobar Widget control language is a nice creative writing exercise but it hardly proves anything. If anything, it rewards lying and deceit to get hired quicker. Many very capable people suck at writing, even if they are truly driven and interested, especially in the computer science field. A cover letter is a great screen for a job that involves a lot of writing, but for most jobs writing is only a side activity that shouldn't be treated as the main objective.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

vanusa 5y ago

Sometimes a modicum of friction is helpful. The thing is it's far more than a "modicum" in practice. There was a recent Harvard Business School study out there revealing that these systems are poorly calibrated (and/or these companies don't know how to use them), and as a result millions of candidates are getting rejected for reasons that are either specious (6-month resume "gaps" that may be due to normal life circumstances) or utterly meaningless reasons (like failing to match certain word combinations). But I agree though that many HR departments would still love to use any tool that narrows the pool (however lossy the filter may be). Whether that is a good thing or bad thing or not is a matter of perspective. In my view, it puts HR's own value and utility into question.

hu3 5y ago
> 6-month resume "gaps" that may be due to normal life circumstances Yep, that's me taking care of my mother undergoing cancer treatment.