[jaggederest]

Thousands of applicants reaching the substantial work stage is a failure of the systems thinking you're talking about. Hundreds of resumes nearly always gets narrowed down to perhaps a dozen or two at most at the screening stage.

And I would make it very clear that putting in more than 30 minutes of work, timed, is a disqualifier, and I would sleep well at night clearing all those people out of the queue.

[dijit]

Hundreds of good applicants can’t be whittled down to a dozen without being very picky about things in the resume which may just be a poor representation.

You will bias heavily along some kind of axis, preferred previous employers or location, age, etc.

You add a lot of bias into the system by trying to further scrutinise otherwise meaningfully qualified people on paper.

[jaggederest]

Once again, you're misunderstanding the goal of the system if you think that it's necessary to deliberately whittle down hundreds of good applicants through careful process to get a great hire.

Hint: you don't even need to evaluate most candidates at all. Random sampling is sufficient and provably bias free.

[dijit]

Reminds me of something I heard once.

> Whenever I get a stack of resumes, I throw half of them in the trash

> I sure don't want unlucky people on my team.

What do you send them as a response "sorry, we're going ahead with other applicants" - "you have not been selected this time" -- what happens if you start needing to dig through that pool of now rejected candidates?

Peak humanity.

[jaggederest]

> what happens if you start needing to dig through that pool of now rejected candidates?

I acknowledge that I am reaching back out, and they may not be available.

Like a human does.

> Reminds me of something I heard once.

>> Whenever I get a stack of resumes, I throw half of them in the trash

>> I sure don't want unlucky people on my team.

I was actually about to make the same joke.