If on the way to work you see someone trip and they can't get up, you should offer them help even if doing so will make you late for an important meeting.
Surely if a rejection was for a reason that a couple weeks of study could "fix," it wasn't worth a rejection, right? Are hirers out there really being THAT picky?
I'm going through resumes right now and rejecting people if I think they need a year or more experience under their belt than what they're presenting. If it's because they know react and not vue, that's not reject worthy at all...
I don't remember 99.9% of what recruiters have said to me, but I do remember the two companies (Hulu and LinkedIn) that made me feel like crap and jerked me around. It was 2 years ago and I'm sure most of the people who were a part of that are gone, but I still kind of have that grudge.
Where I work is an agency, so essentially a collection of already experienced designers, engineers, etc that need to be building quality products pretty much day 1. Any of our time we aren't billing to clients is just coming out of our cut.
It's a somewhat ruthless calculation, but we already skim billed time to do things like give ourselves 20% freetime to work on libre projects, train ourselves on new tech, etc. Some of us use that 20% to mentor bootcamp grads (me) which is the kind of help I want to give to green engineers - I'm a selfish boi and don't wanna lump a billable hour cut on top of that. We absolutely don't have time to be pulling someone in that needs 3 more years before they're engineering at the level we need.
Some companies do actually hire people fresh out of college/coding boot camp, and for those people, some feedback and a few weeks studying might make a world of difference.
So do it at your company and have a competitive advantage.
Yeah, life's hard. But isn't that why it's worth it to fight for a better life? I get it though, "better" is relative.
If the decision to reject was purely objective then sure, but isn't a big part of it if not most of it subjective? And even when the reasons could be objective, I imagine people are deciding in part through gut-feeling and might not be able to articulate the reasons for rejection in an objective enough manner. That's why I imagine people are inclined to fight when given the reasons for rejection.
Obviously my skills and experience are still exactly the same, so this makes perfect sense.
I don’t know, but I personally think this is a terrible signal.
Regardless, brand matters as well. You want candidates to have good experiences even if they are rejected as they will talk to peers about company x
95% of the time, you didn't give as strong answers as other candidates. The other 5% of the time, you came across as a jerk.
Do you only ask candidates 1 question/only look for 1 attribute? And only hire for one level? Cause otherwise, they could've done great on 8 things but missed on another. Or they did well but not quite well enough for the seniority that was desired. I've gotten feedback like this in the past - "your technical answers were great, but we thought you were a bit too green collaboration- and project-ownership-wise" and it was super useful because in my head before that, it was the places where my technical question answers could've been even better that I'd been beating myself up over.
Treating people like disposable garbage because they didn't check the checkboxes the best is a great way to be a shitty manager and a shitty human being.