Job seeker resource thread.

[Alceste]

So I'm looking for work at the moment - really basic stuff to pay the bills. It seems to be harder now than it ever has been. When I was younger, it never took me more than a few days. One day to be assessed by a temp agency, one day for them to process my test scores, and one day for them to give me a job. Or, one day of pounding the pavement with resumes, a couple days of waiting, then a job offer or at least an interview (followed by a job offer).

It's different now. I've been at it for three solid weeks, and I'm registered with three different temp agencies, with off-the-charts test scores and years of experience, and nothing is happening.

So, what's going on? I'm starting to take a more evidence based approach to this whole thing and have found some interesting information I thought I might share. I'm curious to see what others have found.

For participants, please keep in mind THIS IS NOT A JOB SEEKER ADVICE THREAD. This is a thread for sharing insider knowledge about modern HR practices, data, and empirical evidence about how the job market has changed in the past 20 years and what you need to do to get through the increasingly automated screening process. If you haven't got data to share, please keep your advice to yourself. There's nothing less relevant to a job seeker seeker these days than hot tips from someone who hasn't looked for a job in decades.

Anyway, to get the ball rolling, here are a few interesting numbers:

Resumes submitted online are almost all pre-screened by HR bots looking for nothing but keyword matches. If your resume is not in a scannable format (eg, if you are submitting a pdf), you will not pass this stage. Likewise, if you haven't loaded it with keywords extracted directly from the job description, your application will be rejected. Remember, your first hurdle is a computer, so you have to think like a computer. Grab all the important words and phrases you can from the job description and then find a way to work them into your resume somehow.

For those resumes that do pass the automated screening, observational research has found that recruiters spend an average of only six seconds looking at your resume, and they only look at four areas: Job title, company, dates worked and education. Make sure they can find that information in less than the six seconds they're going to spend looking at your resume.

The majority of recruiters do not bother to read cover letters, even when specifically requested, so if you are spending a lot of your time on these and less on tailoring your resume to appeal first to a computer and then to a human who is bored to death of resumes, you're not really helping your chances of success. It's kind of a pickle, since you have to send one while understanding that they won't read it, but if they do one single spelling or grammar mistake anywhere on your resume or cover letter will disqualify you automatically.

That's all I've got for now, and here's the source.
Why You Can

Happy to hear more data in this vein. This helped me identify some major mistakes I've been making, like submitting pdfs to avoid my slick and careful formatting being messed up in the file transfer (common problem with Word docs). I've also been using a skills based resume because I have so much experience now that a detailed experience-based resume would run onto multiple pages. Also, I've been spending a lot of time on style, presentation and clear communication, since I'm going for jobs where that would be important. And, I've been trying to sell my actual skills and accomplishments rather than tailoring my application to be exactly what the job description asks for, with no personal character.

Anyway, hope this is helpful information!

 

[Alceste]

This is an interesting interview with an author who has spent a lot of time investigating why, with hundreds of people applying for every opening, corporations still complain that they "can't find" people with the right skills for the job.

Why Good People Can't Get Jobs: Chasing After the 'Purple Squirrel' » Knowledge@Wharton

...there’s this mismatch between people looking for jobs and employers saying they can’t find people to fill them. I think one of the issues that you raise is what you call the Home Depot view of the hiring process, which basically says that filling a job is like replacing a part in a washing machine. You simply find someone who does the exact same job as that broken part, plug him or her into the wash cycle and that’s it.

 

[freethinker44]

The job market's ridiculous right now. I saw a job listing around here for a dishwasher, experience required. Really, experience required? It takes all of half an hour to train someone for it and they can't do it? What's sad is our society can produce someone who is so disadvantaged that they would have no upward mobility and have to move from one dishwashing job to another.

 

[Alceste]

The job market's ridiculous right now. I saw a job listing around here for a dishwasher, experience required. Really, experience required? It takes all of half an hour to train someone for it and they can't do it? What's sad is our society can produce someone who is so disadvantaged that they would have no upward mobility and have to move from one dishwashing job to another.

I know, right? Another one that chews my *** is jobs that only pay $15-$20 an hour - far below a subsistence-level living wage in this city - requiring a university degree or college diploma. Seriously? How on earth are you ever going to pay off your degree if you can barely pay your rent?

I'm looking at administrative assistant jobs in particular. We're talking about knowing the alphabet and how to answer the phone. I'm astounded that a diploma even exists for those jobs, never mind the fact that some employers insist on them. If I were doing the hiring, being stupid enough to think you need a college education to keep a filing system up to date and irresponsible enough to dig yourself into an unmanageable debt hole to get that retarded diploma would totally disqualify you.

 

[Alceste]

Still reading up on the subject - the significance of modern ATS (applicant tracking system) technology can not be overstated. 75% of resumes submitted online will never be seen by a human being. That means keyword stacking is the single most important thing you can do to get past the automated gatekeeper. Do it on both your resume and your cover letter to increase your rating, and don't be afraid to repeat yourself. Google may be wise to these tricks, but HR software is not.

You may need to change your job titles to get past the bots. If you're applying for a job as an administrative assistant, make that the job title of every relevant position you've ever held, regardless of what your actual title was. No matter how much more important-sounding your job title actually was, if it isn't in the bot's list of keywords, you might as well never have had that job at all.

If I can figure out a good method for analyzing job descriptions to isolate the keywords the bot is most likely to be scanning for, I'll be happy to share it. Unfortunately, some descriptions are terrible, rambling nonsense that makes it difficult to identify what the employer actually wants, or the "job duties" are so detailed and long-winded it's impossible to figure out the relevant job functions the ATS will be scanning for.

 

[freethinker44]

I know, right? Another one that chews my *** is jobs that only pay $15-$20 an hour - far below a subsistence-level living wage in this city - requiring a university degree or college diploma. Seriously? How on earth are you ever going to pay off your degree if you can barely pay your rent?

Oh yeah, I've seen those too. I saw one for a java developer that required a BS in computer science and 5+ years experience, they were willing to pay 11-12 dollars an hour.

 

[Quintessence]

Resumes submitted online are almost all pre-screened by HR bots looking for nothing but keyword matches. If your resume is not in a scannable format (eg, if you are submitting a pdf) . . .

So why the $#@% do they say you can submit something as a PDF if they use a screening process that can't read it?

I preferentially use a PDF, because it retains the aesthetic formatting of my resumes far better than craptastic MS Word does. I can't say I've had a problem with it that I know of - I've gotten interviews with submitted resumes that were PDFs. But many of the jobs I apply for are also not corporate. They're government, non-profit, or small enough that they wouldn't be using this kind of BS system to begin with.

 

[Alceste]

So why the $#@% do they say you can submit something as a PDF if they use a screening process that can't read it?

I preferentially use a PDF, because it retains the aesthetic formatting of my resumes far better than craptastic MS Word does. I can't say I've had a problem with it that I know of - I've gotten interviews with submitted resumes that were PDFs. But many of the jobs I apply for are also not corporate. They're government, non-profit, or small enough that they wouldn't be using this kind of BS system to begin with.

I expect they allow pdfs because any candidate the system disqualifies is one less application they actually have to read.

I've been having better luck (IOW, some form of human contact, if not interviews) with jobs that say to send a resume and cover later to a human being's email address. The last time I came close to an interview was actually a public sector job, and I used pdfs. In that case, though, I had recently held the exact same job as the one being advertised, for about 2 years. Even then, I was asked to do a personality assessment and a very complex test on the practical application of a particular law (with a 24 hour deadline), then I didn't get an interview in the end. They didn't give me any specific feedback either on why I didn't progress.

I can't stand those personality tests. They tell you to answer honestly, but "fail" you if you don't tell them exactly what YOU KNOW they want to hear. I tried answering one honestly for a temp agency and they let me see my score - 39th percentile for clerical acumen. Now I know honesty is definitely NOT the best policy, despite what they say.

 

[Quintessence]

I expect they allow pdfs because any candidate the system disqualifies is one less application they actually have to read.

I'm thinking it should be illegal to explicitly say during an application process that you accept resumes in a specific list of formats, but then don't actually screen all of those formats. In fact, it sounds like something that there should already be a law against. It's a blatant, discriminatory lie.

They didn't give me any specific feedback either on why I didn't progress.

Did you ask directly?

I understand that departments can be pressed for time, so they don't give you a peer review (so to speak) of your documents. Or if they do give you feedback, it's generic, not personalized, and patently unhelpful. You know, the classic line "we're looking for someone with more experience" when the only way to get more experience (especially for young people) is to get a job?

I can't stand those personality tests. They tell you to answer honestly, but "fail" you if you don't tell them exactly what YOU KNOW they want to hear. I tried answering one honestly for a temp agency and they let me see my score - 39th percentile for clerical acumen. Now I know honesty is definitely NOT the best policy, despite what they say.

I haven't had to do those often, fortunately. On the one hand, I don't have a problem with them if there is scientific evidence of their effectiveness. I doubt, however that there is. I also, on the one hand, don't have a problem with them given that fitting within the culture really can be important. It can be miserable to work in a place where you don't fit in - for the employer and often more so for the employee. That's how I try to look at it - if honesty doesn't get me in the door, I probably don't want to work there in the first place.

 

[Drolefille]

Still reading up on the subject - the significance of modern ATS (applicant tracking system) technology can not be overstated. 75% of resumes submitted online will never be seen by a human being. That means keyword stacking is the single most important thing you can do to get past the automated gatekeeper. Do it on both your resume and your cover letter to increase your rating, and don't be afraid to repeat yourself. Google may be wise to these tricks, but HR software is not.

You may need to change your job titles to get past the bots. If you're applying for a job as an administrative assistant, make that the job title of every relevant position you've ever held, regardless of what your actual title was. No matter how much more important-sounding your job title actually was, if it isn't in the bot's list of keywords, you might as well never have had that job at all.

If I can figure out a good method for analyzing job descriptions to isolate the keywords the bot is most likely to be scanning for, I'll be happy to share it. Unfortunately, some descriptions are terrible, rambling nonsense that makes it difficult to identify what the employer actually wants, or the "job duties" are so detailed and long-winded it's impossible to figure out the relevant job functions the ATS will be scanning for.

Of note: Some employers will specifically tell you that they are NOT using a bot. I've been applying to some universities and they have a FAQ for their HR department. They state that every application is reviewed by a human being, but only a selection are passed on to the hiring manager. they also, unfortunately, state that one should NOT call to follow up on an application either.

ETA: Basically being aware of these tricks is incredibly important, but letting them override common sense - like reading up on an employer is not as smart. (Hope this fits within your thread guidelines)

 

[Alceste]

Did you ask directly?

Yes, I did. I actually called her for feedback so I could read her better. Her response was pretty vague. Not exactly dishonest, but the read I got from it was that it had nothing to do with my test score. IMO, either they already had somebody who was already in the gov. in mind or they wanted to spare me the drive to be interviewed, and possibly the move if I actually got the job. She encouraged me to reapply, but nothing that was exactly the same as my previous public sector job has come up since.

I understand that departments can be pressed for time, so they don't give you a peer review (so to speak) of your documents. Or if they do give you feedback, it's generic, not personalized, and patently unhelpful. You know, the classic line "we're looking for someone with more experience" when the only way to get more experience (especially for young people) is to get a job?

Yeah, the trendy HR approach of looking for a candidate with exactly 3-5 years experience at exactly the same job title who is currently working in that job, means that they are all competing for the same very narrow pool of candidates.

No wonder they're having trouble finding skilled candidates if they're only giving jobs to people who already have the exact same job, and have been content with it for 3 or more years!

I haven't had to do those often, fortunately. On the one hand, I don't have a problem with them if there is scientific evidence of their effectiveness. I doubt, however that there is. I also, on the one hand, don't have a problem with them given that fitting within the culture really can be important. It can be miserable to work in a place where you don't fit in - for the employer and often more so for the employee. That's how I try to look at it - if honesty doesn't get me in the door, I probably don't want to work there in the first place.

Well, I'm taking it as a given that I'm going to need to construct an entire fake personality in order to get steady work. I'm a creative person. That spells death for job seekers, and it's something I'm going very far out of my way to conceal, unless I'm applying for creative jobs.

 

[Alceste]

Of note: Some employers will specifically tell you that they are NOT using a bot. I've been applying to some universities and they have a FAQ for their HR department. They state that every application is reviewed by a human being, but only a selection are passed on to the hiring manager. they also, unfortunately, state that one should NOT call to follow up on an application either.

ETA: Basically being aware of these tricks is incredibly important, but letting them override common sense - like reading up on an employer is not as smart. (Hope this fits within your thread guidelines)

Analyzing the language on an employer's website to extract their favourite words and phrases and reflect them back to the HR department in your application is an essential step for keyword stacking, so it's relevant enough.