> they are a lot of work for no guarantee.

Well, its the assymetry of wanting a 10 year long documented CV with various orthogonal points in your career, versus actually having a 30 minute call.

Unlike an actual interview, which is equal time investment, this 20 page paper gets the commentary and result of "no". "No" what? You can ask an interviewer about concerns, and discussion points. This email from no-mail@ is just nothing.

And its not the sting of rejection. I've been turned down, and I too have turned down. But its the mechanistic, dispassionate, legalistic response after months of a "No". And not even a 'What we're looking for is.... '

It's tough on both sides. I understand the disdain of receiving a "no" after putting in hours or days of effort on the materials. Candidates are welcome to ask for feedback on their application but must understand that Oxide is limited in what we can say due to legalities. Hiring is a tricky balance on the legal front. I also understand that it's impractical to give every candidate a synchronous screening call just to confirm whether they should continue applying. Not only for time's sake but also bias. Is it enough for 1 person to do a screening call and decide someone's fate?

No hiring process will ever be perfect but at least, as the experience mentioned previously touched on, the candidate is left with an artifact that they can then use in future applications. Candidates walk away having learned something about themselves. Open roles are also limited, applying for such roles is also optional, and it's up to each candidate to decide how much time and effort they wish to put into the materials.

We're humans here at Oxide too, and we're doing the best we can to ensure the hiring process is fair and humane as well.