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 the same?

Gates that reduce resume flow-through are only useful if their reduction is correlated with quality. Otherwise they're just dragging out your hiring process or unnecessarily causing you to ultimately lower your hiring bars.

▲

jerrythegerbil 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> 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.

▲

falsemyrmidon 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You may as well just randomly pick 65 to discard, if your only goal is to reduce the number for review.

▲

sevenzero 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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 2 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

	▲	kasey_junk 40 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		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.
	▲	sevenzero 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		>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.

▲

Brian_K_White 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This reasoning isn't.

▲

bagels 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

▲

aesthesia 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.