[vulcan01]

> the flood of obviously not qualified at all applicants we got was insane

From speaking to folks looking for jobs in tech over the past few years, this is a natural result.

1. Companies write requirements on the job posting that are a little beyond reasonable for the role and salary.

2. Applicants learn over time, and start applying to jobs for which they only meet most of the qualifications.

3. Companies adjust and write even more ridiculous requirements.

4. Applicants start applying to jobs for which they only meet some requirements.

5. Repeat.

As evidence that the applicants are, at every stage, correctly reacting to the situation: I have received positive responses (and, later, job offers) by applying to roles for which I am only mostly qualified, and I know many people for whom this is true of jobs they are only barely qualified for.

[x0x0]

The last req I opened I closed around 500 applicants. I opened it Thursday afternoon and closed it Tuesday morning.

Over 40% were totally nonqualified. The job was for a rails engineer. In the current market, I wanted exactly what I asked for: a senior rails eng. But as long as the applicant had shipped a web app in a dynamic language -- node, react, vue, svelte, django, flask, phoenix, whatever the php folks use, etc -- it's not unreasonable to apply. That 40% had never shipped a webapp. Another 10% or more completely ignored the senior: many had < 1 year of experience.

I ended up using AI to filter because even 1 minute per is an entire 9 hour day. Engaging for 3 minutes per application is 3x that. And I can't be in a position where I spend effort while the applicant spent none: I assume the bulk of these were just mass applications.

[BobbyTables2]

Reminds me of the joke:

A hiring manager throws away half the applications without looking at them. They don’t want to hire “unlucky” people.

[Denkel]

>And I can't be in a position where I spend effort while the applicant spent none

But isn't that literally what you are paid for? Your job is to do the steps needed to hire someone and that includes reading through applicants. Why would the applicants -that are dojng this for free, for a promise of a posibility- need to put more effort than you?

[avmich]

> And I can't be in a position where I spend effort while the applicant spent none

Looks like the root point of the arms race.

[BobbyTables2]

I have never met a single recruiter that even understood the job requirements or the nature of the work.

What are we even doing here?

[simoncion]

> As evidence that the applicants are, at every stage, correctly reacting to the situation: I have received positive responses (and, later, job offers) by applying to roles for which I am only mostly qualified...

Even fifteen years ago, I was getting advice from grizzled (programming industry) veterans of the form

  If you match even half of what they're asking for, apply. Most of the time, those lists are put together by HR; and even if the list is completely accurate, they're never going to find anyone that meets all those requirements. The ad is asking for the *ideal* candidate. The smart companies know they're going to have to settle for less. Let *them* filter *you* out.

I've interviewed a fair bit, both in and out of Silicon Valley. I've had exactly two interviews where the folks hiring knew exactly what they wanted. All the others were like "Well, we need a programmer to do programmer stuff, IDK.".

[nradov]

That's nothing new. From the job applicant perspective it has always been stupid to filter yourself out if you're even slightly qualified. I mean if you're already unemployed then you have plenty of free time to submit applications so there's nothing to lose.

[ghusto]

I wish this wasn't true (but know it is from experience), because those of us who are posting job requirements that actually correspond to what we're looking for are left with nonsense applications.

[thaumasiotes]

In your process, I understand why step 2 would occur. But what are the companies "adjusting" to in step 3? What's gone out of whack for them that they're trying to correct?

[eightys3v3n]

They get too many supposedly unqualified applications.

[Kaibeezy]

Activator / inhibitor

It’s a Turing pattern generator. Inevitable results.

To fix it, employers could require applicants to include a random variant as part of their application. What parameters? Postage, as is being discussed. Attach a handwritten personal reference letter.

I once designed, built and sent — on my own initiative — a building facade model for an architecture job, but it was with Michael Graves, so I’m sure other applicants sent in entire villages. They were old school enough to send it back with the rejection letter.