5 ms·

Having tried to drink from the firehose in the past, I can say that I have never once had a recruiter lead actually result in a job offer. It's one gigantic cat

by MrDom 12y ago

Having tried to drink from the firehose in the past, I can say that I have never once had a recruiter lead actually result in a job offer. It's one gigantic catch-22. The companies themselves aren't great at hiring, or they wouldn't need to use recruiters doing semi-random searches on linkedin. If you yourself were any good at interviewing, you wouldn't need to rely on the recruiters either. You're an unqualified lead that can't get a job on his own, which to a hiring manager screams "high risk hire." So you start the interview process in the negative column and have to really shine to get a job offer. But, if you were any good an shining in an interview, you wouldn't need the recruiter in the first place. The whole thing becomes a high stress waste of time.

vonmoltke 12y ago
> But, if you were any good an shining in an interview, you wouldn't need the recruiter in the first place. If you need the recruiter in order to get the interview in the first place, it doesn't matter how well you shine in the interview.
- MrDom 12y ago
  Yet more catch-22. Just out of curiosity, have you had success using recruiters to find jobs?
  - MrDom 12y ago
    Why the downvote? It's an honest question. If my assumptions are wrong, I'd like to know.
  - vonmoltke 12y ago
    I have gotten a few potentially good leads from third-party, but the vast majority don't seem to even read my resume. In-house recruiters generally go better, though Google's seem to misread my experience often and approach me for roles I am not really qualified for.
thetrb 12y ago
I think you're very wrong here. In-house recruiters also use Linkedin, I don't know why that would put anybody in the "high risk hire" category. I got my recent job through a recruiter contact on Linkedin and I'm pretty happy about it.
dba7dba 12y ago
"I have never once had a recruiter lead actually result in a job offer." I once had a recruiter (he had my resume) contact me for a Novell admin position. And there was nothing related to Novell on my resume. Then I knew not to waste time with 'recruiters'.
- kfcm 12y ago
  I've landed two excellent positions through outside (not in-house) recruiters. Though the first was 20 years ago; the last, 14. They were respectful, didn't waste my time or the company's, knowledgeable, and selected people based upon experience or qualified reference (the first position, they contacted the head of a user group who knew me well and referred me; then experience counted). The experience I've had with outside recruiters in the past 10 years is atrocious, though. All they're looking for is warm bodies to toss at a company, and hope one of them sticks. No or limited experience--they still want to present you...after modifying the resume you've sent them in Word. Today's outside recruiters are inexperienced in and ignorant of the field ("Your last job was a fitness trainer??"), and borderline unethical. I'm still surprised so many of them are in business.
kfcm 12y ago
Generally true. But I spend some time now and then in a small/mid-sized Midwestern city where going through a recruiter is a requirement. A very high percentage of the businesses are in the same economic sector, and they use the recruiters as the first line of HR, in order to keep their hands as legally "clean" as possible.

by MrDom 12y ago

vonmoltke 12y ago

> But, if you were any good an shining in an interview, you wouldn't need the recruiter in the first place. If you need the recruiter in order to get the interview in the first place, it doesn't matter how well you shine in the interview.

MrDom 12y ago
Yet more catch-22. Just out of curiosity, have you had success using recruiters to find jobs?
- MrDom 12y ago
  Why the downvote? It's an honest question. If my assumptions are wrong, I'd like to know.
- vonmoltke 12y ago
  I have gotten a few potentially good leads from third-party, but the vast majority don't seem to even read my resume. In-house recruiters generally go better, though Google's seem to misread my experience often and approach me for roles I am not really qualified for.

thetrb 12y ago

I think you're very wrong here. In-house recruiters also use Linkedin, I don't know why that would put anybody in the "high risk hire" category. I got my recent job through a recruiter contact on Linkedin and I'm pretty happy about it.

dba7dba 12y ago

"I have never once had a recruiter lead actually result in a job offer." I once had a recruiter (he had my resume) contact me for a Novell admin position. And there was nothing related to Novell on my resume. Then I knew not to waste time with 'recruiters'.

kfcm 12y ago
I've landed two excellent positions through outside (not in-house) recruiters. Though the first was 20 years ago; the last, 14. They were respectful, didn't waste my time or the company's, knowledgeable, and selected people based upon experience or qualified reference (the first position, they contacted the head of a user group who knew me well and referred me; then experience counted). The experience I've had with outside recruiters in the past 10 years is atrocious, though. All they're looking for is warm bodies to toss at a company, and hope one of them sticks. No or limited experience--they still want to present you...after modifying the resume you've sent them in Word. Today's outside recruiters are inexperienced in and ignorant of the field ("Your last job was a fitness trainer??"), and borderline unethical. I'm still surprised so many of them are in business.

kfcm 12y ago

Generally true. But I spend some time now and then in a small/mid-sized Midwestern city where going through a recruiter is a requirement. A very high percentage of the businesses are in the same economic sector, and they use the recruiters as the first line of HR, in order to keep their hands as legally "clean" as possible.