The Job Search Woes Thread

[Wolter]

But having worked in a hiring position before, it's actually fairly easy to reject a resume out of hand.

The point is, however, if they can eliminate a candidate without even looking at the resume, that's all the better from their point of view. It's about making the hiring process as time efficient as possible, an 0 seconds is always better than even 15 seconds. Just like SAT scores—cut off everyone below a certain number means never wasting time looking at them as individuals.

I did once immediately dismiss a candidate because their resume was written in comic sans.

I'm glad I didn't get that job.

Hey, I was good to the people I supervised! I let them leave early and bought them lots of snacks!

Also, all of her memos were in Papyrus!

[Wolter]

I'm hitting the part of the job search where I have two options:

1. Apply for boring admin positions I'm somewhat overqualified for that pay just barely enough to make it worth the effort.
2. Apply for awesome positions I'm definitely massively underqualified for that I probably won't get, and would probably get let go from fairly quickly if I were actually hired.

Hooray.

[JennyB]

My boss was being such a colossal asshole yesterday that all I want to do is quit and become a doggy daycamp counselor.

[Mimi]

Part of all those hoops, I suspect, is to make it easier to reject candidates out of hand. If a company gets, say, 500 applications, they don't want to read all 500. Anything that can be done to funnel the pile into a smaller and smaller number that gets actual attention is desirable. Making people jump thru extra hoops can separate the serious from non-serious or, like the Van Halen red M & M rider, seeing whether people have actually read the instructions is another way to shrink numbers. It doesn't mean the company actually gets the best candidates on the short list, only that it makes the hiring process less time-intensive.

These days, they probably have an algorithm to sort through all the riff-raff.

[BostonBeaneater]

Part of all those hoops, I suspect, is to make it easier to reject candidates out of hand. If a company gets, say, 500 applications, they don't want to read all 500. Anything that can be done to funnel the pile into a smaller and smaller number that gets actual attention is desirable. Making people jump thru extra hoops can separate the serious from non-serious or, like the Van Halen red M & M rider, seeing whether people have actually read the instructions is another way to shrink numbers. It doesn't mean the company actually gets the best candidates on the short list, only that it makes the hiring process less time-intensive.

These days, they probably have an algorithm to sort through all the riff-raff.

I.E. people like us?

[Mimi]

Part of all those hoops, I suspect, is to make it easier to reject candidates out of hand. If a company gets, say, 500 applications, they don't want to read all 500. Anything that can be done to funnel the pile into a smaller and smaller number that gets actual attention is desirable. Making people jump thru extra hoops can separate the serious from non-serious or, like the Van Halen red M & M rider, seeing whether people have actually read the instructions is another way to shrink numbers. It doesn't mean the company actually gets the best candidates on the short list, only that it makes the hiring process less time-intensive.

These days, they probably have an algorithm to sort through all the riff-raff.

I.E. people like us?

we're too punk for corporate america.

[Dr. Medulla]

Part of all those hoops, I suspect, is to make it easier to reject candidates out of hand. If a company gets, say, 500 applications, they don't want to read all 500. Anything that can be done to funnel the pile into a smaller and smaller number that gets actual attention is desirable. Making people jump thru extra hoops can separate the serious from non-serious or, like the Van Halen red M & M rider, seeing whether people have actually read the instructions is another way to shrink numbers. It doesn't mean the company actually gets the best candidates on the short list, only that it makes the hiring process less time-intensive.

These days, they probably have an algorithm to sort through all the riff-raff.

Bigger companies where submissions are done online, yeah, I'd bet on it. What I've told students thinking about applying to grad school, as ass-backward as it sounds, your aim should be to not give the admissions people a reason to reject you. That's what their intent is throughout most of the process—how do we make this pile smaller? So just don't have anything in your application that sets off some kind of a warning bell. If you make it to the final pile without being rejected, yay, you're in. Then, when it comes to scholarships or whatever, that's when you want to stand out amongst the survivors. It's worth putting yourself in the mind of the evaluators and knowing that they hate that shit. Don't give them a reason to hate you, not to love you. That's what the interview is for.

[Kory]

I'm hitting the part of the job search where I have two options:

1. Apply for boring admin positions I'm somewhat overqualified for that pay just barely enough to make it worth the effort.
2. Apply for awesome positions I'm definitely massively underqualified for that I probably won't get, and would probably get let go from fairly quickly if I were actually hired.

Hooray.

I run into this all the time. I blame the boomers.

[revbob]

Part of all those hoops, I suspect, is to make it easier to reject candidates out of hand. If a company gets, say, 500 applications, they don't want to read all 500. Anything that can be done to funnel the pile into a smaller and smaller number that gets actual attention is desirable. Making people jump thru extra hoops can separate the serious from non-serious or, like the Van Halen red M & M rider, seeing whether people have actually read the instructions is another way to shrink numbers. It doesn't mean the company actually gets the best candidates on the short list, only that it makes the hiring process less time-intensive.

These days, they probably have an algorithm to sort through all the riff-raff.

I.E. people like us?

Wait we're riff raff? Why am I just finding out now?

[Mimi]

Part of all those hoops, I suspect, is to make it easier to reject candidates out of hand. If a company gets, say, 500 applications, they don't want to read all 500. Anything that can be done to funnel the pile into a smaller and smaller number that gets actual attention is desirable. Making people jump thru extra hoops can separate the serious from non-serious or, like the Van Halen red M & M rider, seeing whether people have actually read the instructions is another way to shrink numbers. It doesn't mean the company actually gets the best candidates on the short list, only that it makes the hiring process less time-intensive.

These days, they probably have an algorithm to sort through all the riff-raff.

I.E. people like us?

Wait we're riff raff? Why am I just finding out now?

The administrative staff failed to send you the memo, I see. They'll be sacked.

[JennyB]

Part of all those hoops, I suspect, is to make it easier to reject candidates out of hand. If a company gets, say, 500 applications, they don't want to read all 500. Anything that can be done to funnel the pile into a smaller and smaller number that gets actual attention is desirable. Making people jump thru extra hoops can separate the serious from non-serious or, like the Van Halen red M & M rider, seeing whether people have actually read the instructions is another way to shrink numbers. It doesn't mean the company actually gets the best candidates on the short list, only that it makes the hiring process less time-intensive.

These days, they probably have an algorithm to sort through all the riff-raff.

I.E. people like us?

Wait we're riff raff? Why am I just finding out now?

[Wolter]

On my way to fill out paperwork at a staffing agency I've used several times in the past. The pro: they've always found me work. The con: they mainly work in property management, which I don't want to have to go back to.

[Dr. Medulla]

On my way to fill out paperwork at a staffing agency I've used several times in the past. The pro: they've always found me work. The con: they mainly work in property management, which I don't want to have to go back to.

Fingers crossed for you that something more satisfying is on the horizon.

[Mimi]

On my way to fill out paperwork at a staffing agency I've used several times in the past. The pro: they've always found me work. The con: they mainly work in property management, which I don't want to have to go back to.

Good luck.

[JennyB]

On my way to fill out paperwork at a staffing agency I've used several times in the past. The pro: they've always found me work. The con: they mainly work in property management, which I don't want to have to go back to.

Fingers crossed for you that something more satisfying is on the horizon.

I agree with this post.