6 ms·

Is it? Or is it a 65% chance of a resume getting ignored before a single human sees it, reducing your pipeline's likelihood of catching qualified candidates by

• bagels 3mo ago
  The goal for the interviewer is to have a much higher ratio of good/bad candidates after the first screening. This means the more costly time you spend on the second step has a better return.
• jerrythegerbil 3mo ago
  > Gates that reduce resume flow-through are only useful if their reduction is correlated with quality. The volume is infeasible to review everyone for quality, even at an hour scale. The conclusion and solution is inevitable, though I wish it were different. 35% is actually really good if you’re not coming in through a referral. The current reality is <1% and the person reviewing you is exhausted.
  • Brian_K_White 3mo ago
    This reasoning isn't.
  • sevenzero 3mo ago
    What a inhumane way of looking at this. Hiring is deeply flawed, you know it, and yet you keep job postings open for weeks/months in case "the one" magically appears on your doorstep instead of just interviewing 10-20 people and just pick one... Corpo bullshittery at its finest.
    • LinXitoW 3mo ago
      What's the alternative? Everyones up in arms, but I see ZERO viable alternatives proposed. If you have 1000 applications for every job, and you know that a bunch of these applications are "a bad fit", to put it mildly, you have to filter. And you cannot realistically give every resume a good, human look. By the time HR would be done, the market has already moved on five times. So, what is the real difference between being overlooked because HR could only look at the first 100 resumes, or the AI filtered all 1000 resumes down to 100? In the end, a fuckton of potentially great people get their feelings hurt either way.
      • sevenzero 3mo ago
        >instead of just interviewing 10-20 people and just pick one Here's a realistic proposition. HR just wants to inflate numbers so that they seem busy looking for the right fit. Keep posting open for 1 week, manually filter for another week, invite people, employ one. Plenty of people with degrees looking for jobs right now, I don't see what's the issue with just trying one. Companies desperately look for the "magic" applicant that checks all boxes, while also trying to pay them almost minimum wage.
      • kasey_junk 3mo ago
        If your hiring pipeline is employing a filter that a) is not better than a random chance and b) is expensive to implement get rid of the filter. Instead of spending all those resources on resume filtering, hire resume blind. Instead of using llms for a thing they are bad at (subjective decision making) use them to build a deterministic process that isn’t. Use work sample hiring as the filter. Make the work sample automatic to sign up for and judge.
      • RugnirViking 3mo ago
        great question. The alternative is not accepting 1000 applicants. Nobody said you have to keep up your job posting for two weeks, or two hours for that matter. stop once you have enough. Enough is defined by whatever number you would have filtered to. In the rare case none of the first ten applicants were appropriate, just open it again until youve got another tranche.
  • falsemyrmidon 3mo ago
    You may as well just randomly pick 65 to discard, if your only goal is to reduce the number for review.
    • ayuhito 3mo ago
      That’s exactly it for large scale hiring with finite resources. It’s all probabilities in the end. And if an LLM gives you more a more relevant pool vs random distribution, that’s still a net benefit.
• aesthesia 3mo ago
  So the question is: is the score given by this system correlated with candidate quality? I don't think this post gives enough data to know.