3 ms·

OP here. Yes, that is a jump, which I bridged now. OK, technically the absence of genuinely interested applicants is NOT an indication of drive. However, pleas

OP here. Yes, that is a jump, which I bridged now. OK, technically the absence of genuinely interested applicants is NOT an indication of drive. However, please note the context: It’s a brutal job market at the entry level in India at the moment. That’s why we are flooded with applications. Candidates either know this, or quickly figure this out. And yet, that does not translate into many giving their application serious and creative thought? It is a problem they have never been asked to solve for: How to stand apart and demonstrate ability without relying on the usual credentials. It needs creativity and independent thinking and some agency. It is the lack of these that baffles me and makes me search for answers. Learning is not just the know-how and knowledge you acquire for doing a job. It is everything else you need to navigate life and also, in this narrow sense, the skills you need to apply for a job, make your case that you are the right candidate, or at least that demonstrate that your candidature deserves attention. It is a very learnable skill. Especially now. And given the market, a skill anyone with initiative should try to acquire.

crazygringo 2y ago
> And yet, that does not translate into many giving their application serious and creative thought? > It is the lack of these that baffles me and makes me search for answers. I think you are making a fundamental mistake about how things work in a bad job market. In a good job market, let's suppose you have a 10% chance of getting a job you apply for, and you're applying to 10 in this month. Then it's genuinely worth it to spend time and effort chasing those jobs, with "creativity" and "agency" as you put it. Because it's not a numbers game, you're genuinely looking for a good fit. In a bad job market, let's suppose you have a 0.1% chance of getting a job you apply for. Therefore you apply to 1,000 this month, literally 30 a day. It is not rational to put "creativity" and "agency" into those applications, because it is almost guaranteed to be wasted effort. Because the bad job market makes it a numbers game. You are making a judgment on people's character, when the reality is a simple question of economics or game theory. I hope you can gain some perspective and start seeing these job applicants with positive empathy rather than negative judgment. It's not about them not being self-directed -- it's about you having unrealistic expectations. I see that you've gotten a lot of responses like this in the comments. I hope you're able to take it as an opportunity for learning and self-reflection -- there's some valuable stuff here for you, despite your post being flagged.
trod1234 2y ago
There can potentially be a number of issues here. In cellular networks, you have this very real effect called RNA interference. Its where an area is flooded with a fragment that binds to targets blocking them from binding with specific receptor sites. This is being done at scale through ghost jobs, and fake postings. A candidate has a finite set amount of time they can spend. If you aren't getting applications, either you have a very bad reputation, or they are being blocked before you ever see them. Independent action and learning depends upon rational frameworks of mind. The prussian model of schooling has always been about eliminating this in exchange for a unthinking, loyal worker.
- ChaitanyaSai 2y ago
  Interesting analogy!

crazygringo 2y ago

> And yet, that does not translate into many giving their application serious and creative thought? > It is the lack of these that baffles me and makes me search for answers. I think you are making a fundamental mistake about how things work in a bad job market. In a good job market, let's suppose you have a 10% chance of getting a job you apply for, and you're applying to 10 in this month. Then it's genuinely worth it to spend time and effort chasing those jobs, with "creativity" and "agency" as you put it. Because it's not a numbers game, you're genuinely looking for a good fit. In a bad job market, let's suppose you have a 0.1% chance of getting a job you apply for. Therefore you apply to 1,000 this month, literally 30 a day. It is not rational to put "creativity" and "agency" into those applications, because it is almost guaranteed to be wasted effort. Because the bad job market makes it a numbers game. You are making a judgment on people's character, when the reality is a simple question of economics or game theory. I hope you can gain some perspective and start seeing these job applicants with positive empathy rather than negative judgment. It's not about them not being self-directed -- it's about you having unrealistic expectations. I see that you've gotten a lot of responses like this in the comments. I hope you're able to take it as an opportunity for learning and self-reflection -- there's some valuable stuff here for you, despite your post being flagged.

trod1234 2y ago

There can potentially be a number of issues here. In cellular networks, you have this very real effect called RNA interference. Its where an area is flooded with a fragment that binds to targets blocking them from binding with specific receptor sites. This is being done at scale through ghost jobs, and fake postings. A candidate has a finite set amount of time they can spend. If you aren't getting applications, either you have a very bad reputation, or they are being blocked before you ever see them. Independent action and learning depends upon rational frameworks of mind. The prussian model of schooling has always been about eliminating this in exchange for a unthinking, loyal worker.

ChaitanyaSai 2y ago
Interesting analogy!