3 ms·
> I fail 65% of the time. Same exact resume, different luck. As someone who’s run hiring pipelines for technical roles in the past few years, that’s actually a
by jerrythegerbil 3mo ago
> I fail 65% of the time. Same exact resume, different luck.
As someone who’s run hiring pipelines for technical roles in the past few years, that’s actually a fantastic number. I objectively hate saying that, but it’s true.
35% chance of elevating a technical individual to the next stage with no effort? I’ve seen as many as 100+ applicants an hour even when including a domain specific screener question. That’s 35 “screened” applicants in an hour. Were valid candidates screened out? Yes. Does you still have a candidate pool 35x larger than you need? Unfortunately, also yes.
The volume of applicants is SO HIGH such that your chances of getting moved to the next stage are actually markedly worse if AI isn’t involved. If you didn’t apply immediately (using an AI bot) there’s 50+ people ahead of you, and an exhausted technical leader if they ever make it to your resume.
Referral bonuses exist for a reason.
- kyralis 3mo agoIs it? Or is it a 65% chance of a resume getting ignored before a single human sees it, reducing your pipeline's likelihood of catching qualified candidates by the same? Gates that reduce resume flow-through are only useful if their reduction is correlated with quality. Otherwise they're just dragging out your hiring process or unnecessarily causing you to ultimately lower your hiring bars.
- bagels 3mo agoThe goal for the interviewer is to have a much higher ratio of good/bad candidates after the first screening. This means the more costly time you spend on the second step has a better return.
- jerrythegerbil 3mo ago> Gates that reduce resume flow-through are only useful if their reduction is correlated with quality. The volume is infeasible to review everyone for quality, even at an hour scale. The conclusion and solution is inevitable, though I wish it were different. 35% is actually really good if you’re not coming in through a referral. The current reality is <1% and the person reviewing you is exhausted.
- Brian_K_White 3mo agoThis reasoning isn't.
- sevenzero 3mo agoWhat a inhumane way of looking at this. Hiring is deeply flawed, you know it, and yet you keep job postings open for weeks/months in case "the one" magically appears on your doorstep instead of just interviewing 10-20 people and just pick one... Corpo bullshittery at its finest.
- LinXitoW 3mo agoWhat's the alternative? Everyones up in arms, but I see ZERO viable alternatives proposed. If you have 1000 applications for every job, and you know that a bunch of these applications are "a bad fit", to put it mildly, you have to filter. And you cannot realistically give every resume a good, human look. By the time HR would be done, the market has already moved on five times. So, what is the real difference between being overlooked because HR could only look at the first 100 resumes, or the AI filtered all 1000 resumes down to 100? In the end, a fuckton of potentially great people get their feelings hurt either way.
- sevenzero 3mo ago>instead of just interviewing 10-20 people and just pick one Here's a realistic proposition. HR just wants to inflate numbers so that they seem busy looking for the right fit. Keep posting open for 1 week, manually filter for another week, invite people, employ one. Plenty of people with degrees looking for jobs right now, I don't see what's the issue with just trying one. Companies desperately look for the "magic" applicant that checks all boxes, while also trying to pay them almost minimum wage.
- kasey_junk 3mo agoIf your hiring pipeline is employing a filter that a) is not better than a random chance and b) is expensive to implement get rid of the filter. Instead of spending all those resources on resume filtering, hire resume blind. Instead of using llms for a thing they are bad at (subjective decision making) use them to build a deterministic process that isn’t. Use work sample hiring as the filter. Make the work sample automatic to sign up for and judge.
- aesthesia 3mo agoSo the question is: is the score given by this system correlated with candidate quality? I don't think this post gives enough data to know.
- dvt 3mo ago[dead]
- lowbloodsugar 3mo agoExcept the bit about ranking a decades long S3 engineer lower than an intern with GitHub repo.
- PufPufPuf 3mo agoIn that case, I have a pre-screening system to sell you. Through state of the art technology, it only lets through the best* 1% of applications. *According to our proprietary, undisclosed, non-deterministic metric, which may or may not be Math.random
- rvba 3mo agoReminds me of this https://stackoverflow.com/questions/16833100/why-does-the-mongodb-java-driver-use-a-random-number-generator-in-a-conditional https://stackoverflow.com/questions/16833100/why-does-the-mo...
- groundzeros2015 3mo agoI worked at a startup that judged their hiring pipeline quality using rejection rate criteria.
- spike021 3mo agothere have got to be better ways to optimize pipelines. maybe set a limit on number of applications for a role based on the number you/your team can reliably go through them. if more are needed then open the role for another wave of applications.
- ludicrousdispla 3mo agoSo the logical solution is for candidates to submit multiple applications with slight variations to their contact info, "John Schmidt", "John J. Schmidt", "John J. J. Schmidt", "John Jacob J. Schmidt", "J. J. Jingleheimer Schmidt", etc.
- ambicapter 3mo agoIt's a good day to have 3 middle names.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- yuliyp 3mo agoHey, that's my name too!
- Terr_ 3mo agoWhenever I send them out The filters always route: "Spammer: John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt" [N/A] [N/A] [N/A] [N/A]
- IshKebab 3mo agoI wonder if you could solve this for programming specifically as follows: 1. Give them some easy leetcode questions. Nothing that a competent programmer would have any problem with. 2. If they pass, ask for a deposit of like $20. Shouldn't be an issue for people who are actually serious. 3. Do more simple leetcode questions but this time on zoom so you can tell if they are using AI. If they pass that they get the deposit back. (Yeah I know there are real-time interview cheat AI programs but based on what I've seen on demos of them it's super obvious when they're being used.) Probably not practical but just a thought!
- never_inline 3mo agoThis selects for desperation.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- jghn 3mo agoI'm not going to do any of those 3 things for a would-be employer.
- IshKebab 3mo agoThey don't seem like unreasonable things to me so I guess it also helps filter out unreasonable people!
- hju22_-3 3mo agoNumber 2 is so unusual I would immediately flag the company as a scam. How is asking for money a reasonable approach? There are alternative ways, easier too depending on country, and all you'd be doing is selecting for desperation while also spreading bad rumors from all the people who nope out when they see such malpractice.
- IshKebab 3mo agoYeah it's unusual. Nobody does this. It was an idea. What are the alternatives if you are getting over 100 applicants an hour? If you have genuine ideas I'm curious.
- recursivecaveat 3mo agoIf you have no requirements for accuracy, you can just advance 35% of applicants at random. If the first 50 people who apply are all bots, why are you reading resumes in order of submission?
- wodenokoto 3mo agoOne of the first things you do when hiring is to set a period and randomize order of resume when reviewing because early application is not a strong signal.
- mrhottakes 3mo agoSounds like you're pretty bad at hiring pipelines.
- punkbit 3mo agoAre you suggesting using AI/Agents to apply for roles?