[c0balt]

But to which level? Basic automation, i.e. sorting by proficency is not really done better by a human than machine. The problem doesn't lie in automation but how we apply it. Don't blame the tool, blame the user.

I think there is a lot of room for removing overautomation and creating transparency. Though just outright abandoning automation would hurt even more since human routines are even harder to evaluate/ make transparent.

[Aeolun]

If you have too many CV’s to look at, you can simply trash a random set (or automatically send a rejection email), then look at the remainder. You should still have roughly the same ratio of skilled candidates.

[Bromeo]

To still have the same ratio of skilled candidates would mean the automatic rejection has zero merit. For example, what about filtering for a minimum of x years of work experience for a senior position? Surely your ratio of skilled and appropriate candidates will increase.

[etripe]

What kind of proficiency do you mean, exactly? To me, the concept sounds too nebulous for a machine to analyse, as it needs precise instructions/criteria.

[formerly_proven]

How do you "sort by proficency"?