>Oh, and keep in mind false negatives have almost no downside but false positives hurt the recruiter financially, and hiring bad people is expensive. This gets

>Oh, and keep in mind false negatives have almost no downside but false positives hurt the recruiter financially, and hiring bad people is expensive. This gets repeated over and over, makes sense rationally on a superficial level, but falls apart once you think deeper into it without substantiating it with evidence. We don't work on a binary false positive / true positive scale. We don't know the efficiency of each variable going into the equation with which we filter false positives. Layering proxy on proxy doesn't guarantee an increase in the ratio of true positives to false positives. All these variables are costly and subject to diminishing returns. At the end, the workplace is still arguably a far bigger deciding factor in the outcome than who you hire. If you're a big corp like MS getting at least a few dozen candidates after initial automated filters, that's one thing. If you're a relative no-name with a handful of candidates and a fat management layer pulling these shenanigans, it's about time we get real and call them out.