In my other reply I mentioned I never lead job searches with resumes.
It was exactly this kind of situation combined with how I actually got my job that led to this.
In that situation, I'd sent out >100 resumes and got back 100 rejections. I still keep them all because I never wanted to forget the fundamental Epic Fail of looking for work that way.
The thing that crystalized the lesson:
1. I ended up "networking" into a job interview - 15 minutes after I got an offer to start immediately
2. The company I ended up working for (Intel) sent a rejection letter also - to my original resume application - 6 weeks after I'd started working there!!
I then got my next job use the same networking technique to get time in front of the hiring manager, and similarly I had a job within 15-30 minutes of interviewing.
This contrasted with having spent time on resumes, postage (pre-Web) and actively corralling status from each company.
Basically it's question of statistics: which will work more efficiently:
1. A random lottery-odds resume campaign where the resume has nearly no differentiating information to distinguish you from anyone else where the judge of that process doesn't have a STEM degree and is likely overworked and marginally paid above minimum wage
2. A 6-degrees of separation path (no more than 6 hops in a social network) via carefully selected people who likely have STEM training who each have an investment if they pass you through yet have far more knowledge about your qualification because they've talked to you as part of the network building.
The math is pretty damn obvious and trivial. Lottery odds with a faceless bureaucracy or pretty good odds if you are half good with a small set of people who can judge your worth on your merits.
I've used the latter for 40 years and its never failed. Any failures of mismatched jobs were 100% on me (biotech is a weird duck compared to computers or semiconductors).