5 ms·

I don't think fairness was ever the subject at hand. Rather, it's the quality of the process that's up for debate. If you've been rejected for a job, regardless

I don't think fairness was ever the subject at hand. Rather, it's the quality of the process that's up for debate. If you've been rejected for a job, regardless of whether or not your rejection was fair, the point is that you'd probably like to receive some sort of notification as such. Otherwise, how long do you sit around waiting to hear back before you give up and move on? Honestly, the process isn't just cumbersome for the applier, it also causes trouble for other employers, because if you never receive a rejection letter from your first choice company, you're likely to move on to others, and if your first choice happens to get back to you with an offer after you've already contacted others, then you're wasting all the OTHER companies' time.

doctorpangloss 14y ago
You're right, fairness isn't at hand. But maybe we would tolerate being mean to some people and nicer to others as long as we're being fair—that is, we're efficiently matching worker to employer. You say that one employer's neglect harms other employer's hiring. That's a good point, and it shows that organized applications, if applied across all firms, help everyone. A single application system with a single deadline is kind of how universities admissions work. Maybe that's the best system we know. Can we have a system like universities admissions without the fees, is the real question?