3 ms·

Another great article from Aline. Past employers, schools, and GPAs can obviously generate false positives. I like this idea overall and would be interested in

by fecak 11y ago

Another great article from Aline. Past employers, schools, and GPAs can obviously generate false positives. I like this idea overall and would be interested in seeing the results of others. 400 applications to 1 hire isn't a great result, and I was somewhat surprised that only about 5% of applicants were even interviewed. A few months ago I launched a side project, doing (of all things) resume review and revision services. When my clients want a review of a resume that I know won't get results, and I ask "Give me more to work with", the types of things I hear are eerily similar to the "awesome stuff" quotes in this post. I try to incorporate those things into the resume when possible. Is it the resume itself that is the problem, or is it that candidates are just less inclined to include additional details (that may seem irrelevant) that could differentiate them from others? Some resumes will list accomplishments that make it rather clear of their qualifications, but everyone doesn't have that luxury. When a candidate doesn't have a long list of work accomplishments, do they think to include this type of content that might get our attention?

vonmoltke 11y ago
> 400 applications to 1 hire isn't a great result, and I was somewhat surprised that only about 5% of applicants were even interviewed. Though Aline didn't give hard numbers on this, I would not be surprised if a majority of the applicants completely ignored Keepsafe's instructions. She mentioned that a bunch just dumped generic cover letters or links in the box instead of actually answering the question.
brettlangdon 11y ago
I can speak from my own experiences reviewing engineering candidates. Sometimes when you see someone's resume and they have great work accomplishments, like "last 4 years at [successful, engineering focused company], building their [product everyone knows about] platform", it makes deciding to interview that person fairly easy. However, there is that issue when someone is either just starting out from college, who doesn't have a lot of work experience or who hasn't had the best of work experiences (usually not their fault). For these people the main thing that I look for and try to evaluate is their ability to learn on their own. The main thing to consider when reviewing a candidate like that is, if they aren't as up to speed on the technology we need them to, how long do I think it will take to on-board them and get them self-sufficient on our platform. If someone does not have the best resume, but their Github profile is full of projects, even half finished projects, of them trying out different languages or frameworks or maybe making (or trying to make) contributions to open source, it usually makes it easier to say "lets give them a chance," especially if they have been playing around with the languages/frameworks we use. Hope that helps answer your question.
- fecak 11y ago
  Agreed that the ones you are definitely going to speak with are easy to identify. I like to err on the side of giving anyone borderline at least a conversation or request for more info. The "especially if they have been playing around with the languages/frameworks we use" comment hit home a bit. Part of that may be just the asset of exposure to those technologies the hiring company uses (hitting the ground not quite running), but I've had a few clients that seemed to use interest and curiosity in their languages/tools as an indicator of a likemindedness which was viewed as a strong positive. Particularly in the FP world.

by fecak 11y ago

vonmoltke 11y ago

> 400 applications to 1 hire isn't a great result, and I was somewhat surprised that only about 5% of applicants were even interviewed. Though Aline didn't give hard numbers on this, I would not be surprised if a majority of the applicants completely ignored Keepsafe's instructions. She mentioned that a bunch just dumped generic cover letters or links in the box instead of actually answering the question.

brettlangdon 11y ago

I can speak from my own experiences reviewing engineering candidates. Sometimes when you see someone's resume and they have great work accomplishments, like "last 4 years at [successful, engineering focused company], building their [product everyone knows about] platform", it makes deciding to interview that person fairly easy. However, there is that issue when someone is either just starting out from college, who doesn't have a lot of work experience or who hasn't had the best of work experiences (usually not their fault). For these people the main thing that I look for and try to evaluate is their ability to learn on their own. The main thing to consider when reviewing a candidate like that is, if they aren't as up to speed on the technology we need them to, how long do I think it will take to on-board them and get them self-sufficient on our platform. If someone does not have the best resume, but their Github profile is full of projects, even half finished projects, of them trying out different languages or frameworks or maybe making (or trying to make) contributions to open source, it usually makes it easier to say "lets give them a chance," especially if they have been playing around with the languages/frameworks we use. Hope that helps answer your question.

fecak 11y ago
Agreed that the ones you are definitely going to speak with are easy to identify. I like to err on the side of giving anyone borderline at least a conversation or request for more info. The "especially if they have been playing around with the languages/frameworks we use" comment hit home a bit. Part of that may be just the asset of exposure to those technologies the hiring company uses (hitting the ground not quite running), but I've had a few clients that seemed to use interest and curiosity in their languages/tools as an indicator of a likemindedness which was viewed as a strong positive. Particularly in the FP world.