In a statical job applying world, if everyone had a ln equal chance of landing a job (which isn’t the case, but it makes the math easier), you would, on average, have to apply to as many positions as the average number of applicants that apply to the positions your are applying to.
So if each TRUE job opening has 10 people apply to it, you have to apply to 10 jobs (plus a bunch of false postings) to get a job.
If each true job opening has 10,000 people apply to it, you have to apply to 10,000.
original post: https://archive.is/9jidq
Companies use the same kind of systems to (poorly) automate the search for candidates, which is also spammy, inefficient, and wastes job-seekers time. This just levels the playing field.
We live in an interesting world in which HR uses AI to summarize a cover letter or resume that was written using the same AI
It’s all down to how good the prompt is (on both sides) to stand out
This One Trick to Get Marked as Phishing or Spam and Never Get Interviewed Again!
Reading through the comments on the original post, this sounds like a nightmare for everyone involved. Someone suggested that this just levels the playing field by using automation to get past automation and will in theory force companies to review manually, but what company is going to see 1000 to 10,000 applications to a single job in a day and think, “Wow, my automated application reviewer isn’t up to this task. Time to look at these all one by one!”? No, they’re going to be glad they have an automaton tool and double down on using it.
To answer your original question, I don’t know how real it is or if any of those fifty interviews are for positions the candidate is well suited for. I’m just glad I’m not a recent/upcoming graduate trying to get my foot in the industry’s metaphorical door.
Needs more jpeg, I can still almost make out what this is about
