3 ms·

That sounds good in theory until the company that does this is swamped by very strong applicants that have no intention in taking the job. The right balance is

That sounds good in theory until the company that does this is swamped by very strong applicants that have no intention in taking the job. The right balance is equality: I spend an hour, you spend an hour. Rapid CV filtering and coding quiz, then 30 minutes Skype interview to verify claimed abilities: coding, technologies etc. This will filter out 90% of applications and give you a pool of "real candidates" that you should treat with utmost respect. After this, if you need a 2 day coding test with production data, than you should call the candidate on site and pair them with one of your engineers full time for those 2 days.

harry8 5y ago
This is nonsense. No strong applicant wants to waste time applying for a job that they don't want to earn less money than they'd get consulting. You'd get a few more who don't "know" they've always wanted to work for you since forever (ha) and instead want to find out about you, which is a win for you. Applying isn't a dead loss if you don't take it, allows you to be but more adventurous in your applications. "We want to hire Jill who is amazing but couldn't get the incentive to get her across the line is good information. There's still the barrier of applying with a cover letter etc which is a hoop applicants are not getting paid for. Paying applicants for their time once you know you want to talk to them at length is the right thing to do and a huge win for your company. Paying placement agents is just an expensive, dead loss providing zero value to anyone.
- manholio 5y ago
  > No strong applicant wants to waste time applying for a job that they don't want This is circular reasoning. You don't know the applicant is strong until they pass the interview, but you have to pay them to find out. It's a fantasy ripe for the the current seller market, enjoy it while it lasts.
  - harry8 5y ago
    > once you know you want to talk to them at length. That makes them strong enough to pay for their time and if you don't think you can know that with a good enough accuracy to have the placement agents fees pay for it with no loss in an hour at most, maybe gardening is a better place to be than hiring people.

harry8 5y ago

This is nonsense. No strong applicant wants to waste time applying for a job that they don't want to earn less money than they'd get consulting. You'd get a few more who don't "know" they've always wanted to work for you since forever (ha) and instead want to find out about you, which is a win for you. Applying isn't a dead loss if you don't take it, allows you to be but more adventurous in your applications. "We want to hire Jill who is amazing but couldn't get the incentive to get her across the line is good information. There's still the barrier of applying with a cover letter etc which is a hoop applicants are not getting paid for. Paying applicants for their time once you know you want to talk to them at length is the right thing to do and a huge win for your company. Paying placement agents is just an expensive, dead loss providing zero value to anyone.

manholio 5y ago
> No strong applicant wants to waste time applying for a job that they don't want This is circular reasoning. You don't know the applicant is strong until they pass the interview, but you have to pay them to find out. It's a fantasy ripe for the the current seller market, enjoy it while it lasts.
- harry8 5y ago
  > once you know you want to talk to them at length. That makes them strong enough to pay for their time and if you don't think you can know that with a good enough accuracy to have the placement agents fees pay for it with no loss in an hour at most, maybe gardening is a better place to be than hiring people.