[romanhn]

Zero upside, all liability (however remote). Even if rejected after the full interview loop, you are very unlikely to receive any feedback. Expecting it after resume submission is entirely unrealistic given that the hiring manager (or maybe just a recruiter) probably spent no more than a minute or two on it before making a decision. And given the huge volumes of spray-and-pray resumes sent out these days, feedback is not realistic even if the company wanted to provide it. Kudos to the rare exceptions, given all this.

[DataDaoDe]

Basically it mostly boils down to liability I think. Companies can basically only lose from providing true feedback, so its an incentives issue and they are just not aligned here.

[aprdm]

There are thousands of CVs per opening in some companies, how do you expect people who barely have time to read the CVs to also give individual feedback ?

[shumakriss]

I can’t tell if this question is just a statement about the impossibility of the situation or a genuine ask.

We should expect more professional courtesy and human decency for our peers than what typical application processes provide today. It help make candidates identify weaknesses and collectively improve our field.

Perhaps creativity or persistence will help us solve this difficult problem but we won’t get there if we write it off as a fact of life.

[DataDaoDe]

Sadly, if incentives aren't aligned, I'm of the opinion not much will change.

Let's suppose there were a no liability clause for employers when giving feedback, they could say we didn't hire you because we didn't like you or because you were too short, or whatever they wanted. In that case, companies could tell the truth and would have nothing to lose. However, the question would remain - what do they have to gain? To this end, if an applicant could purchase a feedback review, then companies would have something to gain as well.

I'm not saying we should do any of this, I'm just trying to sketch a scenario in which some systematic rules exist which might get both parties to be more aligned on "giving true detailed feedback".

[bruce511]

>> It help make candidates identify weaknesses and collectively improve our field.

Actually, and this will sound wrong, but it won't.

Let's say the worker pool is 1000 candidates. If I give them sll advice, and they take it, I still have 1000 candidates to choose from. It's just harder since they're all better.

On the other hand the resume that contains spelling errors is easy to just discard (low attention to detail.) I don't want someone else to gave told them, I'm trying to find people who have attention to detail without being told.

Failing that I'm looking for people with some initiative. Perhaps someone who has recruited friends, family or even a service to run mock interviews and provide feedback.

Of course resumes are terrible starting points for job applications. You send out thousands, I get thousands. How might you take that knowledge to better stand out from the crowd?

Here's my answer to the original poster; we don't give feedback because of the legal and incentive reasons others have highlighted.

Recognizing this fact, what then is your next step? Instead of being a passive participant in the process, what might you do to stand out from the crowd? What might you do differently to the herd?

[camcil]

Things I have done to stand out from the crowd seem weird because I have to guess as to who I should even start with, often through tools such as LinkedIn Pro or finding contact information through GitHub repos. Many of the application processes are similar and use the same provider to serve them (Workday, etc). When an org does acknowledge your submission, it is often from [e-mail], and there is no HR contact information publicly listed.

If you are a hiring manager, what are some things you have seen that you though took some initiative, but also couldn't be seen as crummy?

[aprdm]

send them a personal email or linkedin msg