By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
thranx on 24 March 2011
Edit Thread
twesterm said:
izaaz101 said:

Seems odd...wouldn't you consider all candidates who meet the required skills, as opposed to just those that have the skills and are employed?  It's like you're artificially paring down the number of people you have to interview, because you're lazy...


The thing is, if you can make it the difference between 100 resumes and 1000 resumes, it's worth it to screen the resumes.  Chances are, in those 100 resumes you're going to find someone at the very least as good as the people in the 900 other rusumes.

If a company did actually consider those other 900 that would eat up the time of the HR department, the leads of whatever department they're applying to,various managers, and probably even the team the person is applying to.  It saves the company insane amounts of money if they can immediately cull out 900 resumes.

It's the same thing where they require five years of experience.  A company doesn't actually care if you have three years or five years, they're just trying to cut down on the number of resume submissions.  Every resume that gets sent to a computer gets put through a filter that immediately culls out the people that fit certain criteria. 

It's not them saying you aren't good enough, they're just trying to save time and money.  People often get so caught up in their own business (and rightly so, being unemployed isn't a small deal) that they forget to think about the other side.  It's much easier to just villainize them.

You always make such great and thought out posts. Thank you for that.