Have you gotten a response after asking why you weren't hired?
-
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/52088358
I know the market is ass rn, I've been looking for a job since I graduated in November of last year with no luck. Every application I get a response like "you are great, your skills are great, you meet every criteria but we found someone better". I recently decided to start replying to emails to ask why I wasn't picked (I reply only to emails that aren't from no-reply or if the say I can ask for feedback). So far I have not even received one reply. Am I wasting my time??? I feel like it's just from automated systems and they don't even look at it. Is everything literally a ghost job?? If you have ever asked for feedback have you gotten anything useful from it?
I’ve been doing interviews for lots of years and in several companies. I give feedback to the hiring manager who is supposed to sugarcoat it a bit and forward it, but most of times there’s not much to say beyond “that’s not the right guy”.
I rejected good candidates just because I knew that the final interview would reject them anyway for some secondary aspect that happens to be valued a lot by a manager. I also rejected good candidates because I was convinced they would not like the job and leave in a year.
It’s not always a matter of skills and it’s not always something you can put in a formal reply.
-
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/52088358
I know the market is ass rn, I've been looking for a job since I graduated in November of last year with no luck. Every application I get a response like "you are great, your skills are great, you meet every criteria but we found someone better". I recently decided to start replying to emails to ask why I wasn't picked (I reply only to emails that aren't from no-reply or if the say I can ask for feedback). So far I have not even received one reply. Am I wasting my time??? I feel like it's just from automated systems and they don't even look at it. Is everything literally a ghost job?? If you have ever asked for feedback have you gotten anything useful from it?
I swear to god this is true. The recruiter said it was my personality. I didn't even ask.
::: spoiler divulgâche
They were actually quite nice about it and I was happy to get the feedback.
:::
-
I’ve been doing interviews for lots of years and in several companies. I give feedback to the hiring manager who is supposed to sugarcoat it a bit and forward it, but most of times there’s not much to say beyond “that’s not the right guy”.
I rejected good candidates just because I knew that the final interview would reject them anyway for some secondary aspect that happens to be valued a lot by a manager. I also rejected good candidates because I was convinced they would not like the job and leave in a year.
It’s not always a matter of skills and it’s not always something you can put in a formal reply.
I also rejected good candidates because I was convinced they would not like the job and leave in a year.
this is an important aspect that i think is overlooked, you dont want to oversell yourself when applying. If I were looking for a salesjob while hunting longterm jobs I would absolutely not tell them about my maths degree it would raisa such a huge red flag.
-
Just out of curiosity, did the take-home assignment direct candidates to include tests, or was there an implicit expectation of them using TDD? I'd probably be one of those to sound a little dismissive of TDD, though I do support testing for nontrivial functionality. I always wondered if anyone really used that workflow or if it was too idealistic for the real world.
I don't remember if there was an indication, but I think not, I remember lots of candidates not writing tests, and usually that was fine, they would mention that they didn't think it was needed for such small code or that they didn't expect to do it for a take-home. The problem with that guy is that when asked about it he said he didn't believe in tests (at all) and thought the whole TDD was a hoax.
I will agree that TDD is a bit idealistic and no one follows it strictly, but to say the whole idea of testing your code is useless is a big red flag that you have never worked on large projects or for long enough. When you're working with huge codebases a change to one file might affect stuff you didn't even know existed, and even if you specifically know and thought about it doesn't mean the new hire will know that the function he's touching is being called indirectly in a completely different part of the code passing a different argument you never suspected because of historical reasons.
-
I swear to god this is true. The recruiter said it was my personality. I didn't even ask.
::: spoiler divulgâche
They were actually quite nice about it and I was happy to get the feedback.
:::
It’s pretty normal to look for someone with a personality in line with the team to avoid personal conflicts (eg “no jerks rule”). Some places also avoid people with a spine fearing a conflict with the management.
I see it as a compliment when it happens to me.
-
Don't do this, it will show up on every HR resume processing software and will not only create noise, you look like an idiot.
HR departments also don't use AI. They have access to every person's personal data and need your keep it protected, that does not work well with having access to functional LLMs on their PC.This account must be a bot if it thinks HR doesn't use AI.
-
This account must be a bot if it thinks HR doesn't use AI.
For what use case? They are not using LLMs to process and manage cvs. I have seen the software at reputable hiring agency and my own HR department.
-
HR departments also don’t use AI.
Mine does.
For what exactly?
-
For what exactly?
As a first low-bar filter to eliminate candidates that are less likely to succeed.
-
For what use case? They are not using LLMs to process and manage cvs. I have seen the software at reputable hiring agency and my own HR department.
Uhh, exactly that? Major hiring software apps adopted LLMs to summarize CVs. And AI does not equal LLM. There are plenty of ML algorithms in use pre-filtering CVs.
-
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/52088358
I know the market is ass rn, I've been looking for a job since I graduated in November of last year with no luck. Every application I get a response like "you are great, your skills are great, you meet every criteria but we found someone better". I recently decided to start replying to emails to ask why I wasn't picked (I reply only to emails that aren't from no-reply or if the say I can ask for feedback). So far I have not even received one reply. Am I wasting my time??? I feel like it's just from automated systems and they don't even look at it. Is everything literally a ghost job?? If you have ever asked for feedback have you gotten anything useful from it?
My buddy asked for feedback once. The recruiter said, "We passed because of the words you said." That was it.
Say better words next time guy. -
Uhh, exactly that? Major hiring software apps adopted LLMs to summarize CVs. And AI does not equal LLM. There are plenty of ML algorithms in use pre-filtering CVs.
Are you able to confirm that hiring apps specifically use inference LLMs for Ai? They have been using advanced algorithms, or Ai as people used to refer to them as, forever.
-
As a first low-bar filter to eliminate candidates that are less likely to succeed.
So does mine, it's an algorithm they have refined over the last 15 years, it's not "smart".
-
So does mine, it's an algorithm they have refined over the last 15 years, it's not "smart".
Ours is LLM based. It makes mistakes, but nothing terrible.
-
Are you able to confirm that hiring apps specifically use inference LLMs for Ai? They have been using advanced algorithms, or Ai as people used to refer to them as, forever.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Why should I when you contradict your own post:
HR departments also don't use AI.
And then:
They have been using advanced algorithms, or Ai as people used to refer to them as, forever.
And "used to" is incorrect. AI is still a parent term.
Alas, 2 seconds of searching has a Forbes article with links to HR tools built around LLMs: https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2024/12/17/16-essential-generative-ai-tools-transforming-hr-in-2025/
But maybe I'm arguing with a bot anyway.
-
Why should I when you contradict your own post:
HR departments also don't use AI.
And then:
They have been using advanced algorithms, or Ai as people used to refer to them as, forever.
And "used to" is incorrect. AI is still a parent term.
Alas, 2 seconds of searching has a Forbes article with links to HR tools built around LLMs: https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2024/12/17/16-essential-generative-ai-tools-transforming-hr-in-2025/
But maybe I'm arguing with a bot anyway.
Are you sure you read the article? It serves my point that HR uses Ai and other than one software suite adding a chat bot for administration, none of it is inference LLMs.
-
Ours is LLM based. It makes mistakes, but nothing terrible.
What software is it?
-
Are you sure you read the article? It serves my point that HR uses Ai and other than one software suite adding a chat bot for administration, none of it is inference LLMs.
Yes, I have. The very first one on the list sells their own HR LLM, and uses others.
https://blog.leena.ai/worklm-by-leena-ai/
And they've integrated LLMs with other tools HR uses since ChatGPT started getting popular,, too.
https://intellyx.com/2023/07/25/leena-ai-llm-based-virtual-assistant-with-proactive-capabilities/
And, personal experience as a hiring manager being given tools that were LLM based.