|
|
|
|
|
by JDiculous
3956 days ago
|
|
Any recruiter is only as good as his/her listings. Comparing recruiters is like comparing NYC brokers. They're pretty much all terrible (principle-agent problem, along with tending to be the type of person who had to resort to recruiting because they couldn't get a better job), only as good as their listings, and inherently work to your disadvantage by making you significantly more expensive to employers (recruiters charge employers ~20% of your first year's salary). Again, even if your recruiter has an awesome personality and makes you feel fuzzy inside, at the end of the day he/she is only as good as his/her listings. A better post would be to evaluate companies so that we can bypass the recruiters, make our own educated unbiased decisions, and capture all of our market value. |
|
A recruiter's listings are somewhat important, but not as important as their knowledge of the market. A recruiter could have a weak contingency relationship with all the best companies in town, but if they don't understand something as basic as the market value of each candidate (not to mention a host of other things) they are doing their candidates a disservice.
Good recruiters usually have good listings because hiring companies tend to disengage from recruiting agencies that don't act ethically.