Why I threw away your resume (from the crankiest recruiter)(bloomberry.com)
bloomberry.com
Why I threw away your resume (from the crankiest recruiter)
https://bloomberry.com/why-i-threw-away-your-resume-from-the-worlds-crankiest-recruiter/
27 comments
See, this gets at the root of my problem with the post. It makes total sense that a recruiter needs to make some adjustments to how they sift through resumes when faced with hundreds of them. They can be as overworked as anyone!
But the tone in the guy’s post is all wrong. That “I can tell you want this job” bullshit. Like, my friend, I just want A Job. Yours isn’t special, they’re all shit we can acknowledge that.
That’s where my mind goes, anyway. Framing this instead the way you do (and the author seemed to try to but couldn’t help putting in a little “tough love” garbage) makes it much more sympathetic and understandable. I’ve read so many of these screeds over the years and the ones that I don’t nope out of immediately don’t come with the sense you’re being talked down to.
But the tone in the guy’s post is all wrong. That “I can tell you want this job” bullshit. Like, my friend, I just want A Job. Yours isn’t special, they’re all shit we can acknowledge that.
That’s where my mind goes, anyway. Framing this instead the way you do (and the author seemed to try to but couldn’t help putting in a little “tough love” garbage) makes it much more sympathetic and understandable. I’ve read so many of these screeds over the years and the ones that I don’t nope out of immediately don’t come with the sense you’re being talked down to.
I'd be happy to write a carefully crafted, specifically tailored cover letter when recruiters are willing to respond with a detailed, individualized rejection letter.
The thing is, it’s not symmetric. They have far more to lose by leaking specifics than you do. The most efficient cover letter conveys just how little initiation you will need to conform to company values. You should edit this down, but by no means do all the typing. The median rejection letter gets the same treatment.
No, it's not symmetric, but not at all in the way you describe.
Worst case, from the employer's side, is they might have to pay the successful candidate *gasp* a few tens of thousands more per year (out of a budget, in a huge percentage of cases, in the two-to-three-digit millions or higher).
Worst case, from the employee's side, is that they might not get any job. For months. During which they still have to pay for food, rent/mortgage, clothing, utilities, etc, possibly for several people.
And these days, the median rejection letter is none. Most employers just ghost prospective employees who didn't make the cut.
Worst case, from the employer's side, is they might have to pay the successful candidate *gasp* a few tens of thousands more per year (out of a budget, in a huge percentage of cases, in the two-to-three-digit millions or higher).
Worst case, from the employee's side, is that they might not get any job. For months. During which they still have to pay for food, rent/mortgage, clothing, utilities, etc, possibly for several people.
And these days, the median rejection letter is none. Most employers just ghost prospective employees who didn't make the cut.
The worst case on the side of hiring is facing a lawsuit because you treated candidates unevenly. And the detail you go into about a candidate are too personal for the hiring process.
So you might have to pay some legal fees, and possibly a fine.
That's still not symmetrical in the common case. It's incredibly unlikely that such a thing would lead to a business going under, while it's all too likely for a job-seeker to have to spend months looking for a job, with no income, very little savings (because a huge percentage of Americans simply don't make enough money to save any even if they have jobs), and a horribly dysfunctional social safety net.
That's still not symmetrical in the common case. It's incredibly unlikely that such a thing would lead to a business going under, while it's all too likely for a job-seeker to have to spend months looking for a job, with no income, very little savings (because a huge percentage of Americans simply don't make enough money to save any even if they have jobs), and a horribly dysfunctional social safety net.
> But if you’ve never ever held a single job for more than 2 years, it really makes me question whether you’re looking to jump to a better opportunity as soon as things get hard.
So a company expects me to stay loyal to them through the worst of times and not jump ship to better opportunities, but when money is tight for them or the founder just wants a new yacht, they'll gladly downsize/sell/merge and lay off hundreds in a heartbeat.
So a company expects me to stay loyal to them through the worst of times and not jump ship to better opportunities, but when money is tight for them or the founder just wants a new yacht, they'll gladly downsize/sell/merge and lay off hundreds in a heartbeat.
Yes, but if you’re an engineer, it’s vital for middle management to see you achieve an entire release cycle.
huh, gosh reading this sure brings back to my mind all those whining recruiters from a few months ago complaining about how mean we tech workers were to them.
Yeah I’m glad this recruiter works for someone else and not me.
1. Do not read 550 CVs yourself. Everyone parses these automatically.
2. The perfect candidate is the one I cannot tolerate going to my competition. If they know my systems or my competitions systems, the recruiter’s job depends on negotiating for them rather than reading cover letters fireside. The challenge for recruiters is that the perfect candidate hasn’t applied.
1. Do not read 550 CVs yourself. Everyone parses these automatically.
2. The perfect candidate is the one I cannot tolerate going to my competition. If they know my systems or my competitions systems, the recruiter’s job depends on negotiating for them rather than reading cover letters fireside. The challenge for recruiters is that the perfect candidate hasn’t applied.
I do understand this perspective. It's just too bad that in our current system, our existence depends on getting and keeping a job. Of course if I ran a company I would only want the best employees and not really feel responsible for random people's lives/them not making ends meet.
On the other hand, a lot of prospective employees are just trying to exist. And some people don't "dream" of work. Others dreams are just plain unrealistic.
And some don't have things that make them unique. Frankly with 8 billion of us, people come a dime a dozen. Not every candidate can be Einstein. And fair if you reject them when looking for an Einstein.
But where do the non-einsteins go then? How can they keep their existence?
What are the societal effects when we handwave this group away and prefer not to think about it? In what ways will it come back to bite us?
On the other hand, a lot of prospective employees are just trying to exist. And some people don't "dream" of work. Others dreams are just plain unrealistic.
And some don't have things that make them unique. Frankly with 8 billion of us, people come a dime a dozen. Not every candidate can be Einstein. And fair if you reject them when looking for an Einstein.
But where do the non-einsteins go then? How can they keep their existence?
What are the societal effects when we handwave this group away and prefer not to think about it? In what ways will it come back to bite us?
The author put it wrong. You don’t have to be unique versus billions, just unique enough to make a few rounds of judicious cuts. By the time they’re ACTUALLY looking at yours in detail, they’ve whittled candidates down to like 10 people (estimate — I’ve only been a hiring boss once and it was an indie pizza place, where the job requirement was basically “are you friends with someone I know and not drunk right now”)
This exactly. Everyone boasts about hiring the top 1% or whatever. What about everyone else.
The entire system is broken. The reason we tolerate capitalism is that it fosters competition and innovation, which produces material plenty.
But then it takes most of the benefits for itself, destroys the environment, and divides society into owners and wage-slaves.
Capitalism is not that far from, and in a sense a continuation of, feudalism. Many dynasties from feudal times are still wealthy today, now owning companies instead of just lands.
The question should be, with 8 billion of us, how should we live, together? What system do we need to maximize humanity, not just 'profit'?
The entire system is broken. The reason we tolerate capitalism is that it fosters competition and innovation, which produces material plenty.
But then it takes most of the benefits for itself, destroys the environment, and divides society into owners and wage-slaves.
Capitalism is not that far from, and in a sense a continuation of, feudalism. Many dynasties from feudal times are still wealthy today, now owning companies instead of just lands.
The question should be, with 8 billion of us, how should we live, together? What system do we need to maximize humanity, not just 'profit'?
Is the cover letter thing actually true? I was under the impression that most companies in tech don't read them.
It's not. But an article explaining the real reasons why your resume was immediately thrown out (you have none of the required qualifications; you live in Australia and the job is only open to US applicants; you applied for the same position a month ago and were rejected then) would be too boring, I guess.
Not in the USA and not in "tech" as such, but I certainly read a cover letter — for exactly the reason given.
When applicants need to apply to hundreds of job positions, because they just need to be able to pay their rent, this all feels grand and all, but it’s not gonna work.
I'd strongly recommend said applicant takes more time for the jobs they are most enthusiastic for, and includes the cover letter and tidied-up CV.
But based on the attitude of the post, you see that people are asking why. Maybe it’s culturally different across sectors, etc. But under what conditions do you expect it to matter?
It matters if I'm reviewing the applications for a job, and has done in all the software jobs where I've been involved in recruitment. I expect the same when I'm applying for a job, so I always include a cover letter.
I feel someone who doesn't make the effort to write a cover letter is more likely to waste our time — cancelling an interview, or not accepting an offer. It's also the applicant's chance to explain why they are a good candidate for this job, and if there's anything odd on their CV.
The CV shows you can do something, the cover letter shows you want to.
I feel someone who doesn't make the effort to write a cover letter is more likely to waste our time — cancelling an interview, or not accepting an offer. It's also the applicant's chance to explain why they are a good candidate for this job, and if there's anything odd on their CV.
The CV shows you can do something, the cover letter shows you want to.
Hiring is broken.
I would not bother with cover letters, take-home tests (unless fairly far into the process), or any other asymetric work - ie work that's free for recruiters to ask for but takes time deliver.
If they are willing to write in detail about how the company would be a perfect fit for you, then it's fair to write a tailored letter about how you'd would be perfect for them.
I would not bother with cover letters, take-home tests (unless fairly far into the process), or any other asymetric work - ie work that's free for recruiters to ask for but takes time deliver.
If they are willing to write in detail about how the company would be a perfect fit for you, then it's fair to write a tailored letter about how you'd would be perfect for them.
> bloomberry helps individuals and companies stay on top of labor market trends. Whether you're a career professional and want to earn a higher salary, or work as a compensation analyst, bloomberry analyzes 1000s of data points in the market to bring you insights into what's happening in the labor market.
Cool, even douchebaggery in blog post form is 100% manufactured. Good to see in this new age of AI we still push the old classics of SEO clickbait.
Cool, even douchebaggery in blog post form is 100% manufactured. Good to see in this new age of AI we still push the old classics of SEO clickbait.
Aren't most recruiters paid by commission? It's in their best interest to encourage short stints (long enough for the commission) so they can make money more often. Ten people staying a year each are worth more to them than one person staying 10 years.
Ragebait
Ridiculous article and on top of that the recruiter gives bad advice.
I've never needed a cover letter in my whole life.
I've never needed a cover letter in my whole life.
Interesting. Really serves as motivation to put 100% of my effort into building my own product. It's a fair article and probably is good advice if you're looking to get hired. Just after 20 years in the corporate workforce I'm pretty tired of this shite. Fkn hoops to jump through.
Here's what I used to do. CVs went through initial triage and were (quickly) sorted into three piles:
1. People I want to interview.
2. Backup pile: I don't want to meet these people, but if there is no one left in (1), we take this pile and work with it.
3. Rejected.
That triage was quick. If you have several hundred CVs, you will judge them quickly. That's not just because you can't spend too much time on each, but also because you can actually afford false negatives: even if you reject some good candidates, chances are you'll still end up with a good hire. So things that people would consider superficial become factors. Badly formatted CV: rejected, it's likely the candidate doesn't care or isn't organized. Typo spotted: rejected, same reasons. Missing information (like dates): rejected. You get the picture.