70 job interviews in 17 days(blog.brandonwang.ca)
blog.brandonwang.ca
70 job interviews in 17 days
http://blog.brandonwang.ca/2017/06/how-to-get-70-job-interviews-in-17-days.html
108 comments
I would like to believe this, too. However, after spending 6+ months helping my SO applying for more than 100 positions, handcrafting every CV and cover letter for each position, highlighting the skills that each position required, and all that we got back was maybe 5 negative answers, I think it's time to try the mass spamming approach. It's true the positions were not hardskills programming ones (more BA/data analyst oriented), but I still find it quite baffling.
The strategy which worked best for me was to first find a job that I was interested in, and then to reach out to someone in recruiting via linkedin, twitter, whatever you find. The point is to have an actual conversation/email exchange so you're not just a pdf in someone's inbox. The recruiters won't think it's weird that you dug up their contact info because this is exactly what they do for a living, and you come in the door as a warm lead, so in the end it's a win for them. I had around an 80% success rate in getting phone screens and on-site interviews using this method.
There are two routes to finding jobs.
First route is through personal contacts/network/referral/nepotism/cronyism. In this case, your strategy of customizing resume and application is an effective strategy as you know your application will be reviewed a relavant human.
The second route is through applying to job listings when you don't have any contact. With this route the chances of your application being reviewed by relevant human is extremely low. In this case, you are better of reaching out to as many opportunities as possible. Pre-application suitability filtering and application customization is waste of job applicant's time. Instead have an standard application and just apply to all positions in your area of interest. Any filtering by job hunter happens once an interested company has made contact.
First route is through personal contacts/network/referral/nepotism/cronyism. In this case, your strategy of customizing resume and application is an effective strategy as you know your application will be reviewed a relavant human.
The second route is through applying to job listings when you don't have any contact. With this route the chances of your application being reviewed by relevant human is extremely low. In this case, you are better of reaching out to as many opportunities as possible. Pre-application suitability filtering and application customization is waste of job applicant's time. Instead have an standard application and just apply to all positions in your area of interest. Any filtering by job hunter happens once an interested company has made contact.
First route is essentially the only way of doing it, especially after you've been in the field for a bit. Either you're doing amazing work, and companies are after you, or you're a kid out of school. In between is ALL about who you know.
Really?
I thought there is a shortage on devs these days.
The last 2 years I only worked with companies I found online on some recruiting platforms.
I thought there is a shortage on devs these days.
The last 2 years I only worked with companies I found online on some recruiting platforms.
I thought there is a shortage on devs these days.
No. It's difficult to evaluate and hire, and the process generally takes much longer than companies would like, for a whole bunch of reasons (some good, some bad).
Which people confuse with "a shortage of qualified devs".
No. It's difficult to evaluate and hire, and the process generally takes much longer than companies would like, for a whole bunch of reasons (some good, some bad).
Which people confuse with "a shortage of qualified devs".
That is an interesting perspective, but quite different than mine. But it could be there is both a shortage of devs and it is difficult to hire and eval etc.
Seattle is estimated to have over 15,000 dev openings. My last company wanted to hire several hundred on its own. All the people we wanted had multiple offers. There seemed to be more jobs than people, but to be fair, it could be because we were all missing a bunch of good people. But it was hard to even get people to apply, they were tired of companies bugging them to interview. It sure felt like there was a shortage devs, because they didn't even want to interview with us.
Seattle is estimated to have over 15,000 dev openings. My last company wanted to hire several hundred on its own. All the people we wanted had multiple offers. There seemed to be more jobs than people, but to be fair, it could be because we were all missing a bunch of good people. But it was hard to even get people to apply, they were tired of companies bugging them to interview. It sure felt like there was a shortage devs, because they didn't even want to interview with us.
A shortage at the price companies are willing to pay, typically growing slower than inflation.
Software development salaries are definitely beating inflation, by at least 2x recently.
http://www.workbridgeassociates.com/posts/images/1835/3054/C...
http://www.workbridgeassociates.com/posts/images/1835/3054/C...
[deleted]
I hire very good people without personal connections using postings here, recruiters, etc.
Any chance you're hiring at the moment?
We're always kind of hiring. Depends if you've got a PhD in stats or some machine learning heavy field, can code a bit and want to work in London.
I have a mentor who convinced me to go the computer engineering route. How do I convince him to grease the wheels so to speak and go the nepotism route to help me land a job out of college? It seems he does not want to do this, and I cannot seems to land a job.
A first job can be hard to land. Are you looking for jobs that you are qualified for? Play up any internships you had. Are you looking in areas that have jobs that are introductory? It's not nepotism unless he's your uncle or something, but it is normal and fine for your mentor to help you find a job.
Look for personal contacts that can help you get through the endless blitz of resumes. Look for a company recruiter on linked in or the web that hires people with your background, connect up with them, tell them you might be a good candidate. Respond quickly to their email. Look for user groups in your area, go to them. Ask your profs. Doesn't your college have a job counseling office, usually you can keep using it even after you graduate.
Look for personal contacts that can help you get through the endless blitz of resumes. Look for a company recruiter on linked in or the web that hires people with your background, connect up with them, tell them you might be a good candidate. Respond quickly to their email. Look for user groups in your area, go to them. Ask your profs. Doesn't your college have a job counseling office, usually you can keep using it even after you graduate.
+1 for the spamming approach. I've been in the software and system engineering field for over 15 years and the best jobs I've got involved the least effort.
Sometimes I painstakingly craft out a cover letter and tailor my CV, but that seems to actually have a negative impact. My success rate is best when I don't write a cover letter at all; just attach your SO's CV to a blank email.
My guess is that it shows you don't really need their job, which makes you a more attractive candidate.
Sometimes I painstakingly craft out a cover letter and tailor my CV, but that seems to actually have a negative impact. My success rate is best when I don't write a cover letter at all; just attach your SO's CV to a blank email.
My guess is that it shows you don't really need their job, which makes you a more attractive candidate.
May I ask what's SO?
Significant other, it means wife/husband/girlfriend/boyfriend.
Stack Overflow. It's a website.
Significant other?
[deleted]
> He got 6 offers from those 70 interviews, which is over a 90% rejection rate
That number is alarmingly accurate from the other side of the table too. I can't speak for any other companies, but from what I have personally observed, from 100 interviewed candidates we hire about 9. (Which translates to >90% rejection/non-hire rate.) The anecdotes from around the London tech scene imply that our numbers are not that different.
Basically, every company struggles with the same problem.
I even wrote about the experience as an interviewer some time ago: https://smarketshq.com/notes-on-interviewing-engineers-a4fa4... ; interviews are not easy. Regardless of the side of the table you're on.
That number is alarmingly accurate from the other side of the table too. I can't speak for any other companies, but from what I have personally observed, from 100 interviewed candidates we hire about 9. (Which translates to >90% rejection/non-hire rate.) The anecdotes from around the London tech scene imply that our numbers are not that different.
Basically, every company struggles with the same problem.
I even wrote about the experience as an interviewer some time ago: https://smarketshq.com/notes-on-interviewing-engineers-a4fa4... ; interviews are not easy. Regardless of the side of the table you're on.
This is because conversion rate is not the right metric to analyze, spamming as a job hunting approach might work, but it is not the best method given the desired outcome.
When businesses spam people they are getting customers, so if they are converting 5.4% out of hundreds of thousands they can get some nice change, but when a job seeker is spamming potential employers he only needs one acceptable offer.
Of course, spamming and getting multiple offers can give you leverage or comfort, but unlike companies which are not advised to put all their eggs in one basket by getting a very large customer, job seekers usually can only be in business with one company.
So I think it would be better to consider Customer Acquisition Cost instead of conversion here, even if the CAC is hard to measure because when talking about job applications it's more about time investment.
The reasoning is that when you spam thousands of job openings you heavily reduce your cost or effort to apply for a job, sending resumes selectively means a higher cost of acquisition but if it lands you the 'big one' it means a higher return on investment.
When businesses spam people they are getting customers, so if they are converting 5.4% out of hundreds of thousands they can get some nice change, but when a job seeker is spamming potential employers he only needs one acceptable offer.
Of course, spamming and getting multiple offers can give you leverage or comfort, but unlike companies which are not advised to put all their eggs in one basket by getting a very large customer, job seekers usually can only be in business with one company.
So I think it would be better to consider Customer Acquisition Cost instead of conversion here, even if the CAC is hard to measure because when talking about job applications it's more about time investment.
The reasoning is that when you spam thousands of job openings you heavily reduce your cost or effort to apply for a job, sending resumes selectively means a higher cost of acquisition but if it lands you the 'big one' it means a higher return on investment.
That's definitely not the key takeaway from the article. What's your point exactly? His approach worked. Your approach works as well. I doubt OP would claim your approach to be inferior, but for some reason you seem to want your process to be superior over theirs. Who cares?
For people who don't see the key takeaway, my read is that it's something like the following: (a) consistency and hard work pays off: it is, or can be, a numbers game (b) thinking like a business can be a useful approach when looking for a job
For people who don't see the key takeaway, my read is that it's something like the following: (a) consistency and hard work pays off: it is, or can be, a numbers game (b) thinking like a business can be a useful approach when looking for a job
The OP defined his funnel:
> * 1300 applications > * ~70 interviews (~5.4% conversion) > * About 6 offers
Which result in:
> [T]he bar here isn't all that high because you only need to make one sale to land a job. ... I had too many interviews to really optimize any more than I did.
We have to ask ourselves if the most effective use of the author's (and employer's) time is doing 64 failed interviews, or whether some portion of those 64 prospects could have been "funneled out" with a lower-cost pre-qualification step in the funnel.
(edit: Another criticism is whether the author is filling his funnel with the "best" jobs by using job postings Angel.co. Do a web search for "the hidden job market" for more on this.)
> * 1300 applications > * ~70 interviews (~5.4% conversion) > * About 6 offers
Which result in:
> [T]he bar here isn't all that high because you only need to make one sale to land a job. ... I had too many interviews to really optimize any more than I did.
We have to ask ourselves if the most effective use of the author's (and employer's) time is doing 64 failed interviews, or whether some portion of those 64 prospects could have been "funneled out" with a lower-cost pre-qualification step in the funnel.
(edit: Another criticism is whether the author is filling his funnel with the "best" jobs by using job postings Angel.co. Do a web search for "the hidden job market" for more on this.)
Those numbers aren't precise because the experiment was not allowed to run to conclusion.
From the post:
"It's of note that these conversion rates, are likely lower than their eventual steady state rates because I ended up accepting an offer which essentially stopped the process."
From the post:
"It's of note that these conversion rates, are likely lower than their eventual steady state rates because I ended up accepting an offer which essentially stopped the process."
> But because I take some care in selecting who I talk to in the first place to make sure we're a match before even getting that far.
My strategy and success rates are similar to yours, but I don't think that identifying good matches really explains all of the high response rate. The other piece of the puzzle is that when you go through this process you necessarily do a lot of work learning about the company/position and tailoring your application, and that work shows itself in your application package and your interview. You will stand out from the crowd of people who shotgunned a generic resume and cover letter.
My strategy and success rates are similar to yours, but I don't think that identifying good matches really explains all of the high response rate. The other piece of the puzzle is that when you go through this process you necessarily do a lot of work learning about the company/position and tailoring your application, and that work shows itself in your application package and your interview. You will stand out from the crowd of people who shotgunned a generic resume and cover letter.
> Personally, I go the other way. I send out resumes selectively, and run closer to about a 30% response rate.
That has been my experience as well; smaller, "boring" companies (that I still genuinely want to work for), project list attached to CV priorized according to the company -> response rate of > 70 percent
Domain experience helps tremendously, if only because it builds some rapport with the interviewer.
Deep customization of CV / project list is lost for larger companies because it never reaches a person who understands it, leading to the abysmally low response rate.
That has been my experience as well; smaller, "boring" companies (that I still genuinely want to work for), project list attached to CV priorized according to the company -> response rate of > 70 percent
Domain experience helps tremendously, if only because it builds some rapport with the interviewer.
Deep customization of CV / project list is lost for larger companies because it never reaches a person who understands it, leading to the abysmally low response rate.
From TFA:
> It's of note that these conversion rates, are likely lower than their eventual steady state rates because I ended up accepting an offer which essentially stopped the process.
His numbers aren't accurate.
> It's of note that these conversion rates, are likely lower than their eventual steady state rates because I ended up accepting an offer which essentially stopped the process.
His numbers aren't accurate.
[deleted]
Yeah that. Quality over quantity all day errday.
I agree that the ratios are most important. I tend to do highly targeted job searching (i.e. carefully screen for roles that would want me, that I would want).
My most recent job search had an 85% response/interview rate, and 42% of the total applications resulted in an offer... of course I only applied to 7 jobs :)
My most recent job search had an 85% response/interview rate, and 42% of the total applications resulted in an offer... of course I only applied to 7 jobs :)
I wonder what's the conversation rate for a woman or person of color?
Someone tested this a while ago by sending online applications with equal Ivy League graduate resumés by just switching the name to stereotypical ones(it was something like John on one, DeShawn on the other), and the 'white-sounding' name had an overwhelmingly higher number of responses.
Person of color here. Everyone else have to struggle a bit more. I am not automatically privileged like the whites are born into. I changed my name in the resume to a white name just for a test and surprisingly got more interview requests.
I got a 100% response rate which makes me think I was aiming too low.
> .. which is over a 90% rejection rate
This is the fallacy of percentages rather than absolutes.
He got 6 offers.
How is that bad?
You're kind of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
This is the fallacy of percentages rather than absolutes.
He got 6 offers.
How is that bad?
You're kind of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I've just recently was approached by 3 recruiters, did one interview (15 minutes over the phone), received two offers (yes, that's right, one offer didn't even require an interview).
Sending 1300 applications and attending 70 interviews feels like a huge waste of time.
EDIT: Also, is sending an application still a thing? Being LinkedIn user for a while I really stopped watching job boards and just rely on offers sent directly to me.
Sending 1300 applications and attending 70 interviews feels like a huge waste of time.
EDIT: Also, is sending an application still a thing? Being LinkedIn user for a while I really stopped watching job boards and just rely on offers sent directly to me.
An offer that does not require an interview is a massive red flag.
Not if it’s based on known job history, personal connection, or other factors that make a candidate known to the one offering. Interviews are typically a means of getting to know a candidate. If you already know them, there’s no need for interviews. I personally know quite a few devs I’d call up to chat about a job/project and give an immediate offer to if they were interested.
Admittedly, in the context of recruiters, it could be different, but doesn’t have to be. Personal relationships are a strong signal for many people.
Admittedly, in the context of recruiters, it could be different, but doesn’t have to be. Personal relationships are a strong signal for many people.
It isn't if you know the person hiring you and they know you.
Red flag warning of what?
I've never heard of a job without an interview.
I've never heard of a job without an interview.
A red flag regarding the nature of the company. No interview shows lack of diligence. If there is no diligence about who they let in, what else are they not diligent about?
It also depends. The way I look at it is the really good companies know people will seek them out. So to get really good jobs you have to seek them out. I've never really gotten an offer from a good company from a recruiter approaching me.
The really popular companies have people seek them out.
How tightly that correlates to "good" is pretty debatable.
How tightly that correlates to "good" is pretty debatable.
I agree.. it's not at efficient way of going about finding a job. But it is effective, if the goal is to get a job. And at the end of the day, he has a job.
As Drucker used to say.. "focus first on being effective, then on being efficient"
As Drucker used to say.. "focus first on being effective, then on being efficient"
May I ask for your no. of years of experience ? Also, would you kindly direct me to your LinkedIn profile? Would love to see how you did it ? Would you kindly suggest some Ljnkedin job hunting techniques?
There is no "technique" for LinkedIn job hunting that I know of, other than keeping your profile complete and up to date. Me personally, I'm a specialist with 11 years of experience, mostly in Java programmming and SOA architectures. There is a lot of demand for such specialists in my country, so I get contacted by recruiters quite often.
Regarding the offer that required no interview - turned out hiring manager and me had some mutual friends, so he just reached out to one of them to get an opinion about me.
For the other offer I had an interview, but it was very short - I think my resume speaks for itself, so it was more like loose talk about my previous projects than real evaluation of my technical knowledge.
Regarding the offer that required no interview - turned out hiring manager and me had some mutual friends, so he just reached out to one of them to get an opinion about me.
For the other offer I had an interview, but it was very short - I think my resume speaks for itself, so it was more like loose talk about my previous projects than real evaluation of my technical knowledge.
May I ask for your country name?
> the script I used to algorithmically apply
I'm not the same as everyone else, so take my opinions with a grain of salt.
I'm a hiring manager, with many openings. To those who are considering this approach, keep this in mind:
- This industry is smaller than you think. I have colleagues all over town and across the country. It's not uncommon for me to be maybe 2-3 degrees of separation from any person or place on your resume. If I think you automated your way into a conversation with us, I don't discount you right away but I highly doubt your sincerity.
- Generic templated messages vs. thoughtful direct messages are _easy_ to detect. Even if I'm wrong, if it doesn't pass the smell test, I will pass.
Do NOT kid yourself about the importance of managing quality vs. quantity in discussion with us. This process likely works in landing you an interview, but it can ignore the human element. To me, how you get in the door matters. Picking out the interested-after-the-fact vs. those who have done their homework on us is easy, and that matters greatly to me.
I hire for the long-term and career-growth minded, and I recognize anyone on my staff can up and leave at any moment. I commit time, resources and energy to ensuring my staff is healthy and happy with us. This saturate-the-airwaves approach to introductions, even if refined, makes me think you're going to treat us as a temporary stop, simply looking to jump to the next "better" opportunity, and therefore leaves me less interested in devoting time to you.
If all this just sounds like better execution with this approach, you're right. Just remember you don't get a second chance with us to make a first impression.
I'm not the same as everyone else, so take my opinions with a grain of salt.
I'm a hiring manager, with many openings. To those who are considering this approach, keep this in mind:
- This industry is smaller than you think. I have colleagues all over town and across the country. It's not uncommon for me to be maybe 2-3 degrees of separation from any person or place on your resume. If I think you automated your way into a conversation with us, I don't discount you right away but I highly doubt your sincerity.
- Generic templated messages vs. thoughtful direct messages are _easy_ to detect. Even if I'm wrong, if it doesn't pass the smell test, I will pass.
Do NOT kid yourself about the importance of managing quality vs. quantity in discussion with us. This process likely works in landing you an interview, but it can ignore the human element. To me, how you get in the door matters. Picking out the interested-after-the-fact vs. those who have done their homework on us is easy, and that matters greatly to me.
I hire for the long-term and career-growth minded, and I recognize anyone on my staff can up and leave at any moment. I commit time, resources and energy to ensuring my staff is healthy and happy with us. This saturate-the-airwaves approach to introductions, even if refined, makes me think you're going to treat us as a temporary stop, simply looking to jump to the next "better" opportunity, and therefore leaves me less interested in devoting time to you.
If all this just sounds like better execution with this approach, you're right. Just remember you don't get a second chance with us to make a first impression.
I'm a hiring manager as well and let me throw out a partial counterpoint: What OP is doing isn't because he doesn't want to be genuine with you. It's motivated because the HR screen is the hurdle to overcome, and there will be no opportunity to have a genuine conversation with you unless he gets past the HR filter first. I have a solution to this that works for me, but maybe not for everyone - I have HR do a very basic screen for my posting (candidate in market, unless I'm going to relo; current career level somewhere in my ballpark), with the exception that I want everything that includes a cover letter.
If you're not big enough to have an initial screen happening, then obviously my point doesn't apply and you're entirely correct. But for many, getting anywhere near the hiring manager is the most difficult step.
Plus, from my memories as an applicant - to startups and larger firms alike - I can't tell you how many times in my past I've taken the step of writing a nice, personalized cover letter and a tailored resume for something which was a reasonably good fit, only to either never hear a word or to receive an automated form rejection in return. Courtesy is a two way street - if your ATS blasts rejections to people, you can't get upset with candidates blasting applications to play the numbers.
If you're not big enough to have an initial screen happening, then obviously my point doesn't apply and you're entirely correct. But for many, getting anywhere near the hiring manager is the most difficult step.
Plus, from my memories as an applicant - to startups and larger firms alike - I can't tell you how many times in my past I've taken the step of writing a nice, personalized cover letter and a tailored resume for something which was a reasonably good fit, only to either never hear a word or to receive an automated form rejection in return. Courtesy is a two way street - if your ATS blasts rejections to people, you can't get upset with candidates blasting applications to play the numbers.
Yes and thank you, very good points.
We are a larger organization, and getting past the HR filter is understandable. We have taken significant measures to improve that step with us, and it has yielded much better throughput on worthy candidates. At sounds as though we do something similar internally -- incorporate shared reviews from our team with inbound resumes.
And to your point about a two-way street -- I couldn't agree more. We respond to everyone, and do so manually. We don't automate that way, as I want a human contact behind the message. (We don't get thousands of resumes, but we do get in the low hundreds.) I've found executing those directly is meaningful and translates to better communication over time. I think of it as a function of customer service, not recruiting.
To really tie it all together: we want to speak with those who have genuine interest, and are willing to put effort into it from the beginning of any conversation with us. We hope our candidates do the same.
We are a larger organization, and getting past the HR filter is understandable. We have taken significant measures to improve that step with us, and it has yielded much better throughput on worthy candidates. At sounds as though we do something similar internally -- incorporate shared reviews from our team with inbound resumes.
And to your point about a two-way street -- I couldn't agree more. We respond to everyone, and do so manually. We don't automate that way, as I want a human contact behind the message. (We don't get thousands of resumes, but we do get in the low hundreds.) I've found executing those directly is meaningful and translates to better communication over time. I think of it as a function of customer service, not recruiting.
To really tie it all together: we want to speak with those who have genuine interest, and are willing to put effort into it from the beginning of any conversation with us. We hope our candidates do the same.
I agree with all of that. And just to be clear, I never disagreed with the principle of your original post. The thing is, for everyone doing it like you (or let's say us, since it sounds like we have a similar approach), there are hundreds of organizations letting the ATS handle it. Unfortunately, everyone else letting the ATS do it is going to harm our efforts indirectly.
I should add that this is probably easy for me to say since I'm outside of a tech hub and also receive a lower volume. If I were getting thousands per vacancy, I'd have to find a different approach, but handing the keys to the ATS is not how I'd want to have it go.
I should add that this is probably easy for me to say since I'm outside of a tech hub and also receive a lower volume. If I were getting thousands per vacancy, I'd have to find a different approach, but handing the keys to the ATS is not how I'd want to have it go.
> everyone else letting the ATS do it is going to harm our efforts indirectly.
Yep, this. I actually see this as a future competitive advantage for us. I want us to be known for having a really positive experience for anyone who wishes to work with us, no matter the choice/decision that ultimately happens. It will take time to get there, but consistency builds reputation.
Yep, this. I actually see this as a future competitive advantage for us. I want us to be known for having a really positive experience for anyone who wishes to work with us, no matter the choice/decision that ultimately happens. It will take time to get there, but consistency builds reputation.
I am sorry that I have to agree with this. The HR filter is a hurdle that can be engineered around (I am not arguing that it should be, but hey, if they erect technological measures in the interests of efficiency of filter process, they should be focusing on the individuals bright enough to learn about this, take advantage of it). Once you understand how resumes are filtered/scored, you can adapt your submission to this.
I am not saying to do this. I am saying, given the technological filter barriers that have been erected between applicant looking at a post and the real hiring manager, yeah, it is a reasonable response.
In terms of a search, I went through this recently. I activated my network (with a few well placed emails) as well as carefully submitting applications to various companies. My response rate to the latter was about 40%, including 2 solid offers. My response rate to the former was 100%, including 1 solid offer that route, 2 likely offers (had I continued). I ended the process by selecting the offer that I thought would be best for me. I had additional people I knew calling to recruit me for up to a month past this.
Not bad for an older-than-40-ish person.
My advice is quite simply, build your network. Make sure people know you, and know what you are capable of. Make sure your history is documented. Update your linkedin. Keep your skills current (ex-Fortran programmer here, so really ... current), show public code contributions. Play with relevant things so you can talk intelligently about them.
What bothered me were the "technical" interviews I ran through with some of the prospects, some of whom spent inordinate amounts of time on things unrelated to the tasks at hand. This is just like sales, you are looking for a fit. And if someone is looking at you for a particular role and asking you deep (meaningless in context) questions about things outside of this role ... this should be a huge signal or red flag to you. Just like with a sales call or meeting, you need to be able to understand when something goes sideways.
Don't get emotionally invested in this. You are selling yourself (your time anyway), and you have to hustle to make it happen.
I am not saying to do this. I am saying, given the technological filter barriers that have been erected between applicant looking at a post and the real hiring manager, yeah, it is a reasonable response.
In terms of a search, I went through this recently. I activated my network (with a few well placed emails) as well as carefully submitting applications to various companies. My response rate to the latter was about 40%, including 2 solid offers. My response rate to the former was 100%, including 1 solid offer that route, 2 likely offers (had I continued). I ended the process by selecting the offer that I thought would be best for me. I had additional people I knew calling to recruit me for up to a month past this.
Not bad for an older-than-40-ish person.
My advice is quite simply, build your network. Make sure people know you, and know what you are capable of. Make sure your history is documented. Update your linkedin. Keep your skills current (ex-Fortran programmer here, so really ... current), show public code contributions. Play with relevant things so you can talk intelligently about them.
What bothered me were the "technical" interviews I ran through with some of the prospects, some of whom spent inordinate amounts of time on things unrelated to the tasks at hand. This is just like sales, you are looking for a fit. And if someone is looking at you for a particular role and asking you deep (meaningless in context) questions about things outside of this role ... this should be a huge signal or red flag to you. Just like with a sales call or meeting, you need to be able to understand when something goes sideways.
Don't get emotionally invested in this. You are selling yourself (your time anyway), and you have to hustle to make it happen.
> It's motivated because the HR screen is the hurdle to overcome, and there will be no opportunity to have a genuine conversation with you unless he gets past the HR filter first.
If everybody starts doing automated résumé spamming, then nobody will get past the HR filter, even if for no other reason than the volume of spammed résumés will become overwhelming. HR recruiters will respond by putting up other roadblocks to return things back to a manageable volume, most likely by requiring one of the much-hated automated coding tests as a screening step before a résumé will be considered, and then everybody loses out.
What this person is doing should be considered highly anti-social and inconsiderate.
If everybody starts doing automated résumé spamming, then nobody will get past the HR filter, even if for no other reason than the volume of spammed résumés will become overwhelming. HR recruiters will respond by putting up other roadblocks to return things back to a manageable volume, most likely by requiring one of the much-hated automated coding tests as a screening step before a résumé will be considered, and then everybody loses out.
What this person is doing should be considered highly anti-social and inconsiderate.
All of your comment applies to you and possibly the company you work for. From my perspective the notion of "career-minded" is especially something that is rapidly altering. The trend toward shorter engagements as a full-time engineer is a lagging indicator of the broader industry trend toward commoditizing development. Companies foster career development less and less, and employees recognize this more and more.
Also this industry is actually much larger than you suggest, and I think your "2-3 degrees" claim is a bit extraordinary. There is far more software development going on outside the tech hubs than I think people in these hubs appreciate, and in many ways under the radar of the like who frequent HN.
Also this industry is actually much larger than you suggest, and I think your "2-3 degrees" claim is a bit extraordinary. There is far more software development going on outside the tech hubs than I think people in these hubs appreciate, and in many ways under the radar of the like who frequent HN.
> your comment applies to you and possibly the company you work for
Very true. As always, your mileage my vary.
> Companies foster career development less and less, and employees recognize this more and more.
Yes -- which is why we care about career development; it's something we view strategically. And yes, while some job functions are being commoditized, people are not. This is true across the industry, whether other companies choose to believe it or not. We take that seriously and make a commitment to those who work with us.
> this industry is actually much larger than you suggest, and I think your "2-3 degrees" claim is a bit extraordinary. There is far more software development going on outside the tech hubs than I think people in these hubs appreciate, and in many ways under the radar of the like who frequent HN.
When we recruit, we do so on a broad level and will look where others don't as a way to get a leg up on our competition. As a result, our staff works out of multiple locations nationally, as well as Canada and the EU.
I have colleagues in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Detroit, St. Louis, Nashville, Ft. Lauderdale, Atlanta, Dallas, San Antonio, Phoenix, Charlotte, Minneapolis, Salt Lake City, Kansas City -- that's off the top of my head. My network is sizable.
The point of my comment is this: don't assume that if you reach out to me, I won't have any connection to your background through mutual relationships. I can't speak for others, but I doubt I'm so unique in this respect.
Very true. As always, your mileage my vary.
> Companies foster career development less and less, and employees recognize this more and more.
Yes -- which is why we care about career development; it's something we view strategically. And yes, while some job functions are being commoditized, people are not. This is true across the industry, whether other companies choose to believe it or not. We take that seriously and make a commitment to those who work with us.
> this industry is actually much larger than you suggest, and I think your "2-3 degrees" claim is a bit extraordinary. There is far more software development going on outside the tech hubs than I think people in these hubs appreciate, and in many ways under the radar of the like who frequent HN.
When we recruit, we do so on a broad level and will look where others don't as a way to get a leg up on our competition. As a result, our staff works out of multiple locations nationally, as well as Canada and the EU.
I have colleagues in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Detroit, St. Louis, Nashville, Ft. Lauderdale, Atlanta, Dallas, San Antonio, Phoenix, Charlotte, Minneapolis, Salt Lake City, Kansas City -- that's off the top of my head. My network is sizable.
The point of my comment is this: don't assume that if you reach out to me, I won't have any connection to your background through mutual relationships. I can't speak for others, but I doubt I'm so unique in this respect.
The lesson here isn't that spamming works - it does now, but it'll very soon stop working if everyone does it. The real lesson is that applying for positions at companies that you want to work at, even if they aren't advertising the job you do, works. Send them your resume regardless and see what happens.
Meanwhile unemployment benefits in certain countries (e.g. Australia) legally require you to do this to keep your benefits. Literally applying.
On the one hand I get that you need to require them to do something and I don't have an immediately better idea, but on the other hand they keep talking about increasing the number of jobs you have to apply for etc despite their literally not being enough jobs for everyone on benefits.
Fun times
On the one hand I get that you need to require them to do something and I don't have an immediately better idea, but on the other hand they keep talking about increasing the number of jobs you have to apply for etc despite their literally not being enough jobs for everyone on benefits.
Fun times
> Meanwhile unemployment benefits in certain countries (e.g. Australia) legally require you to do this to keep your benefits. Literally applying.
I had to document a certain number of applications per week to get unemployment in the U.S., but those policies vary by state.
I had to document a certain number of applications per week to get unemployment in the U.S., but those policies vary by state.
During the height of the recession I had to do the same (also US).
After a while you can tell that a good number of those positions are just recruiting firm honeypots; which makes the search both aggravating and depressing (since you feel like there aren't any /real/ jobs out there).
After a while you can tell that a good number of those positions are just recruiting firm honeypots; which makes the search both aggravating and depressing (since you feel like there aren't any /real/ jobs out there).
> applying for positions at companies that you want to work at
Wanting to work at any company that is willing to hire you, is that an unacceptable answer?
Wanting to work at any company that is willing to hire you, is that an unacceptable answer?
Author here.
A few notes:
I'm not proposing high touch methods are incorrect. I'm proposing there exists an alternative.
HR professionals, the receiving end, spend their day spamming people on LinkedIn, email, etc. The same is true about sales people, marketers, and anybody trying to get the word out, except they do it at scale. I'm a little surprised by how many folks take issue with messaging people who might be interested and also do exactly what you're doing.
If everybody does this, then job hunting becomes more like marketing since your message/resume has to stand out more. Consumers are bombarded with messages every day, they're good at ignoring things they don't want. The folks doing the hiring would become better "consumers".
Engineering roles are, in general, way easier to land than a non-engineering roles because there aren't enough decent engineers.
A few notes:
I'm not proposing high touch methods are incorrect. I'm proposing there exists an alternative.
HR professionals, the receiving end, spend their day spamming people on LinkedIn, email, etc. The same is true about sales people, marketers, and anybody trying to get the word out, except they do it at scale. I'm a little surprised by how many folks take issue with messaging people who might be interested and also do exactly what you're doing.
If everybody does this, then job hunting becomes more like marketing since your message/resume has to stand out more. Consumers are bombarded with messages every day, they're good at ignoring things they don't want. The folks doing the hiring would become better "consumers".
Engineering roles are, in general, way easier to land than a non-engineering roles because there aren't enough decent engineers.
> ...how many folks take issue with messaging people who might be interested and also do exactly what you're doing. ... Consumers are bombarded with messages every day, they're good at ignoring things they don't want. ...
That's the same logic used by advertisers to plaster every square inch of the world with ads. Yet how many people here on HN use spam filters on their mail, ad-blockers in their browsers and commercial-skipping functions on their DVRs? Are we, as job seekers going to want to run the gauntlet of whatever HR devises that's the equivalent of those things if your technique becomes common?
Perhaps your method works, perhaps it's not against any rules, but I have to say that find it to be morally dubious at best. I sincerely hope that it does not see wide adoption.
That's the same logic used by advertisers to plaster every square inch of the world with ads. Yet how many people here on HN use spam filters on their mail, ad-blockers in their browsers and commercial-skipping functions on their DVRs? Are we, as job seekers going to want to run the gauntlet of whatever HR devises that's the equivalent of those things if your technique becomes common?
Perhaps your method works, perhaps it's not against any rules, but I have to say that find it to be morally dubious at best. I sincerely hope that it does not see wide adoption.
You're arguing advertising and the way business is done worldwide is morally dubious.
Why is it morally dubious?
You have to become better at demonstrating value, yes.
Why is it morally dubious?
You have to become better at demonstrating value, yes.
I have a BS computer engineering from GT and the only interviews I have received have been from companies wishing me to sign a 3 year contract or other 1*star glassdoor type shenanigans. I am trying to stay positive but I have lost hope. Ive done the mass submitting and specific tailoring strategies to no avail. Now I wish I had gotten a degree in ANY other engineering discipline. Any advice?
Sorry to hear it's been hard. It depends what you're going for.
I'm an EE, less relevant than CE to CS (if you're going after software positions). There are plenty of EEs, physicists, etc. who are in top posts at most tech companies for software. Your degree isn't limiting you.
Job hunting is about demonstrating value to people who matter. If you can demonstrate value to the hiring person (hiring manager, HR, etc.), then you'll get hired.
So while the resume and education are one thing, they're really the tip of the iceberg. You can contribute on open source, you can showcase papers you've authored, you can build relationships with hiring managers to show that you know your stuff.
If you're going for hardware, hardware positions are lower paying, harder to get, and require more experience than software positions. You might want to apply for internships. Broadcom, Qualcomm, Nvidia, all have great internship programs. They might get you to do fun things you'd never do as a full timer as well (Apple gets lots of interns to go to Shenzhen, Nvidia gets it's interns to drop boxes on the floor to test packaging).
Almost all tech companies I've ever interacted with have different staff that deal with new grads/university students than the rest of HR. A typical HR person probably doesn't like new candidates, but new grads are what university recruiters are supposed to do. I'd seek out university recruiters specifically (you can search "university recruiting" on LinkedIn).
I know lots of people who start companies because the jobs they're qualified for, suck. Honestly, I started my first company because I engineering stopped being challenging/fun and no business wanted to take me on. Now I can say I've scaled businesses, sold my B2B SaaS product to $B companies, etc.
Finally, on the motivation/keeping the hope alive. I've had my fair share of dark times. Tony Robbins, Art Williams, and Zig Ziglar are all great to listen to.
Best of luck!
I'm an EE, less relevant than CE to CS (if you're going after software positions). There are plenty of EEs, physicists, etc. who are in top posts at most tech companies for software. Your degree isn't limiting you.
Job hunting is about demonstrating value to people who matter. If you can demonstrate value to the hiring person (hiring manager, HR, etc.), then you'll get hired.
So while the resume and education are one thing, they're really the tip of the iceberg. You can contribute on open source, you can showcase papers you've authored, you can build relationships with hiring managers to show that you know your stuff.
If you're going for hardware, hardware positions are lower paying, harder to get, and require more experience than software positions. You might want to apply for internships. Broadcom, Qualcomm, Nvidia, all have great internship programs. They might get you to do fun things you'd never do as a full timer as well (Apple gets lots of interns to go to Shenzhen, Nvidia gets it's interns to drop boxes on the floor to test packaging).
Almost all tech companies I've ever interacted with have different staff that deal with new grads/university students than the rest of HR. A typical HR person probably doesn't like new candidates, but new grads are what university recruiters are supposed to do. I'd seek out university recruiters specifically (you can search "university recruiting" on LinkedIn).
I know lots of people who start companies because the jobs they're qualified for, suck. Honestly, I started my first company because I engineering stopped being challenging/fun and no business wanted to take me on. Now I can say I've scaled businesses, sold my B2B SaaS product to $B companies, etc.
Finally, on the motivation/keeping the hope alive. I've had my fair share of dark times. Tony Robbins, Art Williams, and Zig Ziglar are all great to listen to.
Best of luck!
I appreciate you taking your time to respond, I will try to find university recruiters.
This probably is not what you want to hear but your first job will be hard to find and will probably suck, too.
Stay for one year, then start looking around- you will be surprised by your range of options.
In the meantime, keep looking.
Stay for one year, then start looking around- you will be surprised by your range of options.
In the meantime, keep looking.
I appreciate the response. Are you commenting from a CE standpoint or software engineering? I took a lot of EE classes thinking I could get a hardware job, but that seems like a lost hope.
Software engineering. It can be a bit tough getting in because employers are reluctant to train programmers with no work experience. With a couple of years experience your options broaden significantly, with 5+ years and 2-3 employers under your belt (and provided you are good at what you do) you will have many offers to choose from.
Absurd as it may be, it is the reality of the market and the majority of graduates go through it.
Hang in there, it is worth it in the end.
Absurd as it may be, it is the reality of the market and the majority of graduates go through it.
Hang in there, it is worth it in the end.
This is a classic case of tragedy of the commons. I don't find anything particularly noteworthy about this to warrant communicating this to a larger audience.
Unilaterally spamming potential employers in this way may result in improving your outcomes, but at whose cost?
Unilaterally spamming potential employers in this way may result in improving your outcomes, but at whose cost?
Exactly, this is a self reinforcing feedback loop. I've heard about getting 200 resumes for an open position multiple times. Obviously it varies. Assuming 40 1 hour interviews per week, this would be 5 weeks. Also, your employees aren't working during that time, which can be bad if you have way too much work, right now. So there's a need to filter heavily. Enter filter by keywords, or maybe even discrimination.
while(true) {
1. faced with a large number of resumes, employer become aggressive about filtering.
2. faced with a large number of rejections or not hearing back, employee sends even more resumes.
}
while(true) {
1. faced with a large number of resumes, employer become aggressive about filtering.
2. faced with a large number of rejections or not hearing back, employee sends even more resumes.
}
[deleted]
It was really hard, and took many spammy attempts, but you can do it too!
homeless dude looks up hopefully, fishes out his tattered, vacant resume
"In my case, my message was: I've built 2 companies, got a strong technical background, worked at places like Microsoft/Amazon/Nvidia, and I'm looking to work with great people."
Oh.
homeless dude looks up hopefully, fishes out his tattered, vacant resume
"In my case, my message was: I've built 2 companies, got a strong technical background, worked at places like Microsoft/Amazon/Nvidia, and I'm looking to work with great people."
Oh.
I'm really not trying to start an argument here, because there are many disadvantages that are hard/impossible to hurdle. However, being unemployed comes with a single, potentially powerful advantage: time. As a programmer, you need a computer (cheap second hand one is fine), you need a place to work and you need and internet connection.
If you are unemployed for more than about 6 months, people start to look at you suspiciously, but after that you can't really fall any further. Being unemployed for 1 year or 2 years can be an advantage if you use that time productively. It won't appeal to everyone, but battling back from nothing is also a compelling story.
Like I said, there will be many people who can not do it, for one reason or another, but I think the message that brand is important is not wrong.
If you are unemployed for more than about 6 months, people start to look at you suspiciously, but after that you can't really fall any further. Being unemployed for 1 year or 2 years can be an advantage if you use that time productively. It won't appeal to everyone, but battling back from nothing is also a compelling story.
Like I said, there will be many people who can not do it, for one reason or another, but I think the message that brand is important is not wrong.
Yeah, he's certainly got a 'different' background from a lot of people looking for work at the moment. It's a bit like an entrepreneur writing a blog post about startup success, then mentioning how their parents/friends gave them $500,000 to start the company with.
Most people probably wouldn't be that lucky.
Still, it does also show that even the best candidates will struggle with the job finding process in this day and age. I mean, someone with that sort of technical background and experience should be getting offers all over the place.
If you're an ex Microsoft/Amazon/Nvidia employee who set up two companies and has a strong technical background, and you're still only getting a 5.4% conversion rate...
Yeah, the system is really messed up.
Most people probably wouldn't be that lucky.
Still, it does also show that even the best candidates will struggle with the job finding process in this day and age. I mean, someone with that sort of technical background and experience should be getting offers all over the place.
If you're an ex Microsoft/Amazon/Nvidia employee who set up two companies and has a strong technical background, and you're still only getting a 5.4% conversion rate...
Yeah, the system is really messed up.
It seems very odd to me to treat the job application process in this way. If nothing else, interviews are pretty much an all-day affair, at least in the sense that even if you have a short one, it's still going to be tough to schedule 2 in a day. Add that onto how many companies want multiple rounds of interviews, phone screens, take-home projects, etc and you get that you want to have a good idea that you actually want to work for a company before you apply and go for an interview. That doesn't mesh very well with writing scripts to mass-apply to companies and going on multiple dozens of interviews.
As a founder perspective:
1. I highly second using angel list. Modern founders know, and we (graphistry) list there!
2. ... We are overwhelmed by candidates from there, both by junior or bigco candidates who are hard to distinguish just on paper, and senior candidates who we are not sure are serious. Probably ~100% of the people we talk to didn't do the author's generic approach, but shared a carefully crafted 1-3 paragraphs. The more you go out of your way, the more we notice.
Take it from the perspective of a neat small team (like ours!) who is excited about what we do & are growing. Whoever we hire now has a huge impact on what we're building, and as we're planning out the next 3-4 doublings of our team, your personal DNA & culture will determine the success of the 10 people who descend from you. You want to apply to teams who are spending time on doing this well.. and in turn, do it well yourself.
Also.. [email protected] if you agree ;-)
1. I highly second using angel list. Modern founders know, and we (graphistry) list there!
2. ... We are overwhelmed by candidates from there, both by junior or bigco candidates who are hard to distinguish just on paper, and senior candidates who we are not sure are serious. Probably ~100% of the people we talk to didn't do the author's generic approach, but shared a carefully crafted 1-3 paragraphs. The more you go out of your way, the more we notice.
Take it from the perspective of a neat small team (like ours!) who is excited about what we do & are growing. Whoever we hire now has a huge impact on what we're building, and as we're planning out the next 3-4 doublings of our team, your personal DNA & culture will determine the success of the 10 people who descend from you. You want to apply to teams who are spending time on doing this well.. and in turn, do it well yourself.
Also.. [email protected] if you agree ;-)
Even after reading the intro, knowing what was coming, it still somehow surprised me to bump into the word "funnel" referring to job applications. Good way to think about it if applying for lots and lots of jobs is the goal!
> Having lots of offers takes a lot of psychological pressure off of the process.
This intrigues me the most, I'd love to hear more about it. I personally would have expected the opposite before reading this. Often having multiple job offers makes me freeze up and worry a lot about which one I should choose. But maybe that's because I'm worrying about 2-3 jobs I want, as opposed to 70. I'm often optimizing relationships and my own happiness potential rather than compensation. That one sentence does make me want to try an approach like this.
It'd be equally easy to spam without a script, right? This one looks like it hit "Apply" 1300 times in 1.5 hours - I'm looking at the 4 second delay. The script might be a 10-20 minute job, but I'd be paranoid enough about running something like this with my name attached that testing it and making absolutely certain it didn't go haywire would very likely take me a few hours. I probably would have done something that didn't scale, and clicked 1,300 times manually.
I did chuckle a little when creativity was mentioned multiple times, for a process that is automated and "spam". It is a bit creative, so I don't mean to judge - I'm seeing the word spam in many comments here - but I feel like there are some much more creative ways to get exactly the job you want, and the idea here might be more about DIY than "creative" per se.
> Having lots of offers takes a lot of psychological pressure off of the process.
This intrigues me the most, I'd love to hear more about it. I personally would have expected the opposite before reading this. Often having multiple job offers makes me freeze up and worry a lot about which one I should choose. But maybe that's because I'm worrying about 2-3 jobs I want, as opposed to 70. I'm often optimizing relationships and my own happiness potential rather than compensation. That one sentence does make me want to try an approach like this.
It'd be equally easy to spam without a script, right? This one looks like it hit "Apply" 1300 times in 1.5 hours - I'm looking at the 4 second delay. The script might be a 10-20 minute job, but I'd be paranoid enough about running something like this with my name attached that testing it and making absolutely certain it didn't go haywire would very likely take me a few hours. I probably would have done something that didn't scale, and clicked 1,300 times manually.
I did chuckle a little when creativity was mentioned multiple times, for a process that is automated and "spam". It is a bit creative, so I don't mean to judge - I'm seeing the word spam in many comments here - but I feel like there are some much more creative ways to get exactly the job you want, and the idea here might be more about DIY than "creative" per se.
Personally, I would be reluctant to go to a face-to-face interview that hasn't been preceded by a phone interview and (ideally) a technical test.
By the time I step into the employer's office, I am 90% sure I would like to work for them. Anything else would be inefficient use of time, both mine and the employer's.
By the time I step into the employer's office, I am 90% sure I would like to work for them. Anything else would be inefficient use of time, both mine and the employer's.
> Startup compensation can be right up there with the big companies.
Does anyone know how to find these companies when you're already at the high end of the spectrum? There are thousands of start ups and even shooting an email or checking LinkedIn for previous work history of current engineers can be a time drain to figure this out.
Ideally, the compensation would be something like > 80% total comp of big tech company in liquid money + a lot of private RSU's ( > 50% of big tech total comp)
Does anyone know how to find these companies when you're already at the high end of the spectrum? There are thousands of start ups and even shooting an email or checking LinkedIn for previous work history of current engineers can be a time drain to figure this out.
Ideally, the compensation would be something like > 80% total comp of big tech company in liquid money + a lot of private RSU's ( > 50% of big tech total comp)
Most things about job seeking are a time drain, not only it is hard to find companies because of fragmentation but when companies use terms such as 'developer', 'programmer', 'engineer'(plus the weird ones: 'ninja'/ 'rockstar') it gets much harder to search, I would kill for someone to come up with international standard codes for these like SE0001 for a software engineer.
[deleted]
I recently had 4 good offers on the table at the same time and it was unbelievably stressful for me, I don't ever want to go through that again. I don't see the value in applying to even more companies and increasing that stress further...
This has to be some sort of logic fallacy. With multiple offers you are guaranteed to be able to get higher pay, more time off, and/or better working conditions. You can't see the opportunity cost for one job offer, but tradeoffs to other jobs still exist. You might still be happier more productive and better qualified for a different job at a different company.
This times 1000.
When I took my current position, I had only one offer. I was moving cities and my response rate was lower than I'd like (some jobs explicitly requested locals), plus I had a shorter window in which to jump ships.
Needless to say, I wasn't negotiating from a position of strength. A nice bump, for sure, but I could have done much better. I regret having to move so quickly.
But now that I have a strong name on my resume, companies are lining up to interview me and this time around I can pit their offers against one another.
Sure, having to pick companies might be slightly stressful, but knowing you got the best deal is an amazing feeling.
When I took my current position, I had only one offer. I was moving cities and my response rate was lower than I'd like (some jobs explicitly requested locals), plus I had a shorter window in which to jump ships.
Needless to say, I wasn't negotiating from a position of strength. A nice bump, for sure, but I could have done much better. I regret having to move so quickly.
But now that I have a strong name on my resume, companies are lining up to interview me and this time around I can pit their offers against one another.
Sure, having to pick companies might be slightly stressful, but knowing you got the best deal is an amazing feeling.
I've been able to negotiate 5-10k increase on offers, and improved contracts whilst unemployed and without any competing offers, i've never felt the need to play companies off each other. Being candid has served me well and makes me feel a lot better about myself than trying to play salesman.
I benefit from a lot of privilege and circumstance, but any company making me an offer probably knows that not having another offer right now doesn't weaken my hand, at any moment i'm only a few days away from another offer if I really want it.
So yeah, I suffer from anxiety-related issues, I'm going to choose the route of less stress.
I benefit from a lot of privilege and circumstance, but any company making me an offer probably knows that not having another offer right now doesn't weaken my hand, at any moment i'm only a few days away from another offer if I really want it.
So yeah, I suffer from anxiety-related issues, I'm going to choose the route of less stress.
> This has to be some sort of logic fallacy.
Not a Devo fan, are you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buridan's_ass
> With multiple offers you are guaranteed to be able to get higher pay, more time off, and/or better working conditions.
Actually, you aren't. You are, however, free to pick one of many offers, and one of them may suit you better than the others. Perhaps you can negotiate better offers, but this doesn't mean that a potential employer may be willing to present a better counter-offer.
Not a Devo fan, are you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buridan's_ass
> With multiple offers you are guaranteed to be able to get higher pay, more time off, and/or better working conditions.
Actually, you aren't. You are, however, free to pick one of many offers, and one of them may suit you better than the others. Perhaps you can negotiate better offers, but this doesn't mean that a potential employer may be willing to present a better counter-offer.
They don't have to be willing to present a better counter. If they don't, you just eliminate them from the pool and your decision is that much easier. If you are afraid to do that, then the multiple offers are only illusory anyway, since you would clearly have a preference you should be acting on.
> If they don't, you just eliminate them from the pool and your decision is that much easier.
You're somehow assuming that salary is the only relevant parameter in choosing a job, or even that all jobs are equivalent in career growth and creating more job opportunities. Some jobs are dead-ends and career killers, even if they pay more. This sort of stuff needs to be considered.
You're somehow assuming that salary is the only relevant parameter in choosing a job, or even that all jobs are equivalent in career growth and creating more job opportunities. Some jobs are dead-ends and career killers, even if they pay more. This sort of stuff needs to be considered.
I don't know why you got downvotes for that, but I agree and have had similar experience - multiple offers are very stressful for me. The pay and PTO are usually secondary concerns. Usually it's more stressful because I get job offers through my network, and when I turn down offers I'm also turning down one of my friends who's gotten really excited for me to come work with them. Also it gets more stressful when the better job for me pays less than a job I dont want as much, making it harder to decide. With only a few offers, you take them all seriously and spend time evaluating which ones will lead to a more fulfilling life, not just which ones pay more.
But... I bet the author is right about this mass application technique lowering his stress. He's gaming the system and not applying through his network, there's no great reason to care deeply about any of the offers, and he has so many offers that it's not risky to mess some of them up. You get to be detached and learn more about the application process by doing dozens of them at once.
It reminds me of this Moth podcast story about the guy who data mined for dates on OK cupid. https://themoth.org/stories/data-mining-for-dates Worth the listen, but he reported being a lot less invested in individual dates, and seeing interesting patterns in the process. It did add some stress, but a different kind of stress than he had with one-date-at-a-time.
But... I bet the author is right about this mass application technique lowering his stress. He's gaming the system and not applying through his network, there's no great reason to care deeply about any of the offers, and he has so many offers that it's not risky to mess some of them up. You get to be detached and learn more about the application process by doing dozens of them at once.
It reminds me of this Moth podcast story about the guy who data mined for dates on OK cupid. https://themoth.org/stories/data-mining-for-dates Worth the listen, but he reported being a lot less invested in individual dates, and seeing interesting patterns in the process. It did add some stress, but a different kind of stress than he had with one-date-at-a-time.
In my case, two of the offers were from my network/friends. One was as the only developer for an exciting pre-incubator startup (I would still have been taking a decent salary), and another was for a company who gave me a decent offer and the head of engineering reached out to me personally whilst I was deliberating to offer some very kind words. The end result was that in all 4 cases I ended up caring about the people i'd be disappointing if I turned down the offer.
So you're right that maybe the mass approach is better for avoiding this feeling, although it's hard to imagine taking it unless I was already out of work and could invest the time in such a high number of potential interviews.
So you're right that maybe the mass approach is better for avoiding this feeling, although it's hard to imagine taking it unless I was already out of work and could invest the time in such a high number of potential interviews.
Yeah I'm going through that at the moment, it's paralyzing to have to make a choice of that importance.
This book is an incredibly good book for making this kind of decision: https://www.amazon.com/How-Will-Measure-Your-Life/dp/0062102...
Breaking down offers into pros and cons and comparing them against each other really helps. But you need to have a clear idea of what you are looking for and more importantly, what your dealbreakers are.
I did all that, and it was very stressful :)
Basically, all 4 options had variables that appealed to me, and there was no clear winner.
The fundamental issue was that my dream job doesn't appear to exist in London right now, the kinds of things I want to work on all seem to require moving to either SF or NY. So I was essentially having to work out which job would most progress my skillset and experience for 2-3 years from now.
Basically, all 4 options had variables that appealed to me, and there was no clear winner.
The fundamental issue was that my dream job doesn't appear to exist in London right now, the kinds of things I want to work on all seem to require moving to either SF or NY. So I was essentially having to work out which job would most progress my skillset and experience for 2-3 years from now.
Is job searching really at a point now where hiring people to mass apply to jobs for you is an actual suggestion?
Any advice for interviewing? I have a second interview coming up soon.
That is the key number here. And that was just to get an interview. He got 6 offers from those 70 interviews, which is over a 90% rejection rate, despite some pretty good credentials in his background.
Personally, I go the other way. I send out resumes selectively, and run closer to about a 30% response rate. And In my entire career, I've only ever NOT gotten an offer twice. Not because I am some extremely special coder --- I'm not. But because I take some care in selecting who I talk to in the first place to make sure we're a match before even getting that far.