Face It. Your Hiring Process Is Broken

I agree with the article's sentiment, but perhaps for different reasons.

I'm 22 and have been unemployed for a few months now. I recently had a handful of on-site interviews, all of which I didn't pass. I quit my previous job due to management issues and general workplace issues that were exceptionally abnormal (apologies for the vagueness, but I don't want to be too identifiable).

I'm currently living with my parents and recovering from the emotional exhaustion of it all. To me, at least, rejection itself isn't the real issue -- if I could get rejected quickly and regularly that would be ideal for finding a better match. The issue for me is more so the social and emotional fatigue of getting genuinely interested in the companies I interviewed at and going through the 5-8 hour on-site process (which, in general, I've actually enjoyed -- most of the people I've met with at the interviews have been quite fun to talk with).

I think it's a shame that hiring isn't more efficient. I find searching through job lists soul-crushingly boring and incredibly tedious. Especially because many jobs throw around certain technologies as buzzwords and don't (and likely don't have any intention of) actually using them, making search engines very ineffective as well.

I miss working on teams and getting things done in the way that only teams can, but so far that hasn't outweighed my general apathy towards the process to continue.

So I do think that the hiring process is broken, if only for the existence of people that are bored and would be happy to work just for its own sake. I'm in the process of becoming more active in some FOSS projects I care about but I find working from my room a lot less productive than a proper office environment.

> I have asked every person who has turned me down what I could do better.

I wouldn't say anything either. There's no upside. Why risk giving any kind of ammo to someone with a grievance they want to justify?

She says she's a frontend developer and a nerd, so why is she pigeonholing herself in these "digital content coordinator/content marketer" fad jobs instead of moving up from PHP?

This was painful to read. I had to stop halfway.

This post dedicates the first several paragraphs - not sentences - on why the author posted her "rant", why it was a mistake, why she deleted the posts, and re-posted, multiple times. She could have simply said "This article was originally posted on Reddit as a rushed rant, and I dropped out of fear that it might impact my employability when it gained traction. I decided to post this, however, because I felt this point needed to be said"

A couple of "pages" in, I still have no grasp of what the point is, just that she got lots of attention in Reddit and people. Let's not forget the "RIP my career" hyperbole.

Past the "why I'm posting this again", the original article starts with "I'm shooting myself in the foot right now". At this point, this serves no better purpose than grandstanding for attention. I can see from the provocative title the article is going to be about hiring process, which we can all agree is non-optimal. I'm expecting this would either contain critical thought backed either by data or personal anecdote. This sentiment has been expressed by so many people, I have hard time believing this would "end" your career. Let's get to the point.

Past random rants, follows a meta-analysis on a subreddit. The author shares a screenshot from one subreddit that seems to gear towards job seekers. (the author mentions /r/jobs) There are no links, none of the post titles she mentions are found in the top page of that subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/jobs/top/ Even one examplarly post that she shared a screenshot of - "No interview no nothing..." has 8 upvotes in 3 days. It's not a pinnacle of "concensus". Even for her standards, it's not representative of any meaningful sample.

Then there's a distracting update on upvotes and comments. Why does that matter? Two-digit upvotes are not even impressive; look at any post in front page, right now.

Several pages' worth of reading and I still have no idea why the hiring is broken. I've learned that there is a subreddit for job hunters and a preview of random posts, and her imaginations on why. Oh, and the post gained some traction in Reddit. Sure.

It then links to several medium posts - and no followup. What does the article by Jason Shen matter? How does that relate to your point? What am I expected to get out of it that would help understanding your point?

And that's when I stopped. The author is right; this post would likely hinder her employability. If I had Googled her name, and saw this meandering screed, I would have second thoughts in bringing her in. Not because she's become too controversial figure to be a risk, but due to her apparent lack of organization of thought. Not to mention apparent need for attention. Even this response is a screed, because there's no central point or articulation to respond to.

Best of lucks to the author, I hope she gets better vindication than internet endorsements.

Okay....

First, /r/jobs skews towards young people just getting started, and further skews towards people who are having trouble finding a job. Those who aren't having trouble don't bother posting rants about it. So you can point to a 100 complaints there, it doesn't mean its a representative sample of all job-seekers. Selection Bias.

I mean even BASIC statistics would say at least count what PERCENTAGE of posts are "I cant get a job" relative to the total. Just finding 10 posts saying "I can't get a job" means there are 10 people in that situation .. it says almost nothing about the market except that there are 10 frustrated people. Unrepresentative Sample.

Companies don't offer feedback on why they rejected candidates because of legal issues. OP - now that you are a recruiter, are you going to give candidates feedback even when HR tells you never to do that because it might get you sued? Are you willing to put your job on the line and risk getting your company sued? If not, then perhaps you understand why it is the way it is..

The point about not enough "diverse" candidates in hiring channels. Again, refuting it by saying women are so MUCH MORE DETERMINED is 1. bullshit stereotyping (there are no gender differences, remember???), 2. doesn't address the point. If roughly 20-25% of CS majors are women (look it up), OF COURSE the hiring pool will tend to reflect the same ratio - 2/10 women, 8/10 men. When the pipeline is skewed all the way starting from school/college, it will remain skewed in jobs too. The employers cannot fix the pipeline. Biased Population => Biased Sample.

Your own linked article shows 28% CS majors are women, and 28% of people with jobs in IT are women!! Does not sound particularly biased to me.... how about learning some statistics before ranting?

Also, believe it or not, everyone gets rejected from jobs they are qualified for. There are only so many spots.. and many more candidates. So many who pass the minimum bar will get rejected because a better qualified candidate came along!

A whole lot of frustration does not make an argument. I agree the hiring process IS broken because of clueless recruiters, low salaries, ridiculously high interview bars etc. But uninformed rants don't help. Of course, some will call me a sexist... as if I can only be on "team diversity" or "team sexist". The (statistical) truth is much subtler than either of those poles. I'm on "team look at the data without a pre-conceived notion of what you want to find".

I agree some of the problems she mentions with hiring are there. I am against this particular article because its very poorly thought through. Its twisting facts and collecting anecdotes to suit a pre-determined narrative.

The cultural point the author brings up sounds interesting. What's the ratio of male:female in India vs USA?

After a certain point, you really have to wonder if, just maybe, it's you. Anecdotally, those who somehow can't find work in this field might be sending all the wrong signals. Are companies looking for less than what you want? Sure. However, are your skills and connections actually worth that much?

This also doubly counts if you've made yourself a public figure in any way. Quite a few companies may not want to have to deal with someone who is very likely to talk poorly about them.