4 ms·

But this also has a silver lining right? Candidates gain the opportunity to be a lot more descriptive about their fit and make their case better. And companies

• Ukv 2y ago
  Candidates would increasingly be making their case to a brick wall - companies running "just in case" or "may as well keep a pulse on the market" automated interviews in the same way they post ghost jobs positions on listings. I think ability to make their case better is only really a positive for candidates if it's associated with increased chance of being hired, but here that expectation gets kind of broken if even candidates who make their case very well have a significantly lower chance of being hired from that interview. Something like automated review of the candidate's existing projects/website (linked in their application) seems more reasonable, in that I don't need to recreate my projects for each job application. Automated interviews just seem like they'd make it too easy for companies to have a flippant disregard for job-seekers' time, because the costs of running thousands of interviews would be almost entirely borne by others. Long term, I think spreading the remaining cost (i.e. having the company compensate interviewees) is likely the less-wasteful way to restore symmetry, rather than mandating that the current cost on the company's side is reintroduced (i.e. that interviewers must be human).