I work in the public sector. There's a requirement (i.e. law) that the job posting is available for the public to read for two weeks. No selection may be made before all applications are received.

After two weeks, the posting is taken down.

> - Submit a basic and honest response for the people who's resumes didn't make the consideration

If you have 200 resumes in the pool and 100 of them weren't passed on for additional consideration because they didn't meet the requirements (education, needing visa sponsorship, outside of the country, not following the instructions for the application), how long will that take?

Furthermore, in the litigious nation we live in, that information when provided honestly has tended to lead to lawsuits ("I wasn't considered because...").

> - A simple human note for the candidates who were considered but didn't make the interview

That's another 100 candidates. Three minutes each to write the email? That's three hours of someone's day. Again, this gets to the litigious situations. It only takes the allegation of bias to lead to a lawsuit - that costs way more than three hours of my day.

This is the public sector, we don't pay a lot - that's why it's only 200 applications. In the private sector it wouldn't be hard to multiply that number by 3 or 4.

> - Timely closer for the interviewed candidates who didn't get the job

This is something that we're good at. The people who were interviewed know by the end of the week. Job posting opening to the selection being made is four weeks.

The simple and honest response can be an automated email that says you didn't meet the requirements - you would be amazed at how many job postings don't even do that.

I can understand the justification for all of the other choices. But it doesn't mean I have to like it. The whole process is degrading and dehumanizing, and it's something that has gotten much, much worse in the last decade.