[kyralis]

Is it? Or is it a 65% chance of a resume getting ignored before a single human sees it, reducing your pipeline's likelihood of catching qualified candidates by the same?

Gates that reduce resume flow-through are only useful if their reduction is correlated with quality. Otherwise they're just dragging out your hiring process or unnecessarily causing you to ultimately lower your hiring bars.

[jerrythegerbil]

> Gates that reduce resume flow-through are only useful if their reduction is correlated with quality.

The volume is infeasible to review everyone for quality, even at an hour scale. The conclusion and solution is inevitable, though I wish it were different. 35% is actually really good if you’re not coming in through a referral.

The current reality is <1% and the person reviewing you is exhausted.

[falsemyrmidon]

You may as well just randomly pick 65 to discard, if your only goal is to reduce the number for review.

[sevenzero]

What a inhumane way of looking at this. Hiring is deeply flawed, you know it, and yet you keep job postings open for weeks/months in case "the one" magically appears on your doorstep instead of just interviewing 10-20 people and just pick one...

Corpo bullshittery at its finest.

[Brian_K_White]

This reasoning isn't.

[aesthesia]

So the question is: is the score given by this system correlated with candidate quality? I don't think this post gives enough data to know.

[bagels]

The goal for the interviewer is to have a much higher ratio of good/bad candidates after the first screening. This means the more costly time you spend on the second step has a better return.