|
|
|
|
|
|
by dsacco
3267 days ago
|
|
|
Eh...I see your point, but it seems a tad hyperbolic. When I was interviewing for remote positions I saw similar numbers, so I agree with that. What I don't agree with is mapping those numbers to competitiveness. How many of those 300-500 applications were actually competitive? You can do a first order qualification check on 300 - 500 resumes in a day if you're sorting into two piles: "I can immediately say no to this" and "I can't immediately say no to this." You'll probably still have a lot to deal with at that point (though honestly I wouldn't be surprised if you've reduced 50% in my experience - people submit truly awful applications). Of those candidates, most are still going to be unqualified. I distinctly recall phone interviewing 20 candidates back to back, each of whom couldn't answer very simple interview questions (and I mean simple, not "HN interview humblebrag simple"). I know, I know, this means we didn't have a high quality candidate pipeline. But that's harder to do with remote positions. So to that last point, I suppose I have to concede if you're defining competition as higher numbers of raw applications. That's not the definition I'd use for competitiveness (though it's definitely a valid one), but probably better we get that sorted instead of talking past each other :). I would consider a position more competitive based on the quality of candidates applying to it, not based on the sheer number of people applying. As someone who has interviewed and worked in remote positions I've never really been concerned when applying for them, because I've always been reasonably confident I can hit the top n percentile of candidates, where n is inversely proportional to the total number. |
|
|