u/HeadlessHeadhunter

Recruiter here, who is a Millennial; all of that stuff was told to us as well, and then the economy crashed. I am sad that these same lies are persisting across generations.

College does NOT guarantee you a good future, it just increases your CHANCES of having a better future and the differences between those two are massive.

Nope. I don't know where that myth came from. Most people don't care about the past roles you applied to.

Nope. Only qualified for about 4 of them, but it didn't matter cause the one he was qualified for we got him hired.

Recruiter here. YES we actively want you to apply to more roles, as long as you are a fit. Had one guy apply to 21 of my open roles and I was able to get them a job on the 18th application.

What type of roles are you recruiting for and why is your boss giving you zero budget?

Recruiter here, this works in corporate as well. Although I think what they meant by "No clear target. If your resume doesn't say what role you want, it doesn't get picked for any of them" is do not create a generlized resume but create a resume for the job family that you want. Generalized resumes never work.

Recruiter here. This is either going to be a technical interview where the whole team is going to be judging you or it's going to be another vibe check. If it's the latter, they want to make sure you are someone they can spend 40+ hours a week with. Whether you are going to get along with your new team is what they are going to judge you on.

How you succeed is by doing exactly what the person interviewing said "I don’t want to meet interview you, I want to meet the real you”.

Recruiter here. This is accurate. November and December are the months you are most likely to get laid off and most likely to NOT get a job as hiring starts slowing down to a crawl until it re-opens in January of next year.

1. You tailor your resume to the job family you are applying to and mass apply with that job family tailored reusme.

2. Both. The timing and relevency matters, we stop looking at applications once we find enough qualified people, which is usually within the first 100 applicants.

Speed and accuracy both matter equally well. If you are not accurate, and within the first 100, then we skip your resume, if you are accruate but not within the first 100 we won't see it. You tailor to the job family not the job itself.

Recruiter here, AI screening and automated recruitment systems are a myth that fake career coaches say to make you afraid so you buy their terrible resumes. ATS sorts people in the order they applied. Anything that increases your time to hit "submit" in the ATS will lower your chances.

If you are resume #139, the recruiter may find who they need at number #75, and once we fill up ours/managers' schedule with interviews, we stop looking unless the HM needs more candidates.

Yes, AI ATS do exist, but they exist in such small numbers that unless you specifically apply for an AI company, you probably will only see an AI ATS in 1 out of 100 applications and those AI ATS don't screen you out without the recruiter being able to look at your resume, so even in the case of an AI ATS, the human is still making the decision and that individual "score" is going to be unique to that specific role so external sites won't get it right. The default setting for the vast majority of ATS on the market (including Workday) is first-come, first-served.

You are struggling to get a job NOT because of some AI or automatic system but because we are neck deep in a recession and the amount of jobs that exist have decreased compared to the amount of people that need them in the last 10 years.

100% as a recruiter, I recommend people update their resume every 3 months because it's a lot easier to make your resume when you are in a job and are not stressing than when you need to find a job asap.

Because if they gave you the interview time you wanted, another candidate would be in the same exact situation as you. Recruiters do not work with 1 or 2 candidates at a time we work with potentially 20 to 40 candidates each week, and all of them need to be booked correctly.

If they took your request, they would have then had to cancel the interview with another candidate, send them an apology email, and go through the exact same thing with you with that candidate, and if THEY wanted a specific time that is booked, well, the process starts anew, and no recruiter has that kind of time on their hands.

You are upset, and you have a right to be what happened to you sucks, but you don't get to dictate anyone else's schedule but your own.

Tech Recruiter here, if you have four years of full time work history in coding (not just freelance, actually 40 hours a week) or you have a CS degree, you can get a job. If you do not have one of the two things listed above, the market is too brutal, and no one is hiring self taught devs without the long work history to back their skills up.

Recruiter here, no one is wrong in this situation. They made an honest mistake and told you the exact reasons why. You decided that was not enough of a reason and refused to continue. Nothing wrong with that. Although I am thinking this story might be fake as this line sounds really suspicious.

"Would you still interview me even though I wasted your time and resources”

Employer: “Probably not but it’s different because you are the one asking us for employment and we are obliging the opportunity”

If a candidate messages a person back and has a reason, an actual reason (my calendar showed PST instead of EST, my boss pulled me in for an emergency meeting, etc), most recruiters do actually let you reschedule. I have personally hired a lot of people who did not make it to the first meeting and needed to reschedule.

Unfortunately, not many you can pivot to without a few years of education and years of experience.

Any hot industry always assumes a few years of experience, as almost no one has hired new grads in the last decade.

Embedded SWE, Electronics Engineer, Retail Manager, and Nursing are all pretty hot, so is Sales, but someone good at sales is always going to be hot.

Recruiter here, this is not going to make you feel better, but those low level jobs like McDonald's are tough to get into right now. EVERYONE is struggling to get a job. We are in a major recession, and it's getting worse. While there are demonstrable things you can do to increase your chances, it's still going to suck searching for a job no matter who you are.

Yeah, that would take me longer than doing it myself and give me worse results; that is not something most of us would waste time on.

Tech Recruiter here, 200 jobs in 3 months is not enough. I say this as someone who typically gets Software Engineers 1 interview per 7 applications with my advice. We are in a recession, and you will need to apply to around 50 a week.

6 years ago, we had a good economy, that is not the case now. You also are going to DEEPLY struggle to switch careers as EVERY industry except a few are in the toilet right now.

Recruiter here, both Indeed and LinkedIn have built-in features that show jobs that are posted recently and have fewer than 100 applicants. You don't need to go to the company's website or use a third party, as both have the features built in. I made a little infographic if you want to message me for it, takes like 3 mins to set up, although you do have to set it up again every day as ijt doesn't fully save the settings after every day.

The big issue I have with this is why? Why would I need to listen to a podcast about a random person who is being interviewed when I have literally hundreds I could interview that are more alligned from a location and skill set in my pipeline.

You stated, "It’s basically an initial interview and the time commitment for recruiters is ~30 mins for each listen, shorter if they increase playback speed." That is too long. Most people can do a comprehensive phone screen within 15 mins.

The other problem I have with this is, why should I trust you? Not in a mean way, but why should I trust your interview to be the same as the interviews my manager needs in order to move forward with a candidate?

Everyone is different in what they need and what they need asked in an interview. I once had 3 hiring managers for the same title in the same company (Software Engineer Python Backend), and all three of them voted differently on the same candidate that applied to each of their roles. One didn't like em, the other thought htey are ok, and the third moved them forward to the next step.

I am not saying this to be rude, but I don't see the point of this. It doesn't save me time and it doesn't increase the quality of the candidates I present.

People post jobs at all hours of the day, some in the morning, some at night, some at 3 AM as recruiters work in different timezones. Both Indeed and LinkedIn have a feature that lets you find jobs within the first 100, and if you want, I made an infographic I can send you if you message me.

As to why I have been posting the same thing for over a year, the answer hasn't changed. 1 + 1 still equals 2. Most of hiring has not changed in the last decade; if I am being honest, AI has barely made a dent in how people operate and work when hiring.

Keywords do not get you hired. Qualifications do, and a qualification is

WHAT you did (the keyword for the specific job family you are applying for) and WHY you did it in a way that a toddler could understand the purpose of what you did and it's impact.

The only way to know would be to be on the hiring team for that role. Otherwise, job posting notifications are your best bet.

Recruiter here, we are in a recession, and it's harder now to get a job than it has been since 2015. It takes most people 9 months to 15 months to land a job on average. It's worse for entry level people. We are also approaching November/December, which in the US is the worst time of the year to look for a job.

Tech Recruiter here. This resume doesn't work at all. It doesn't show me how you used any of the skills you used, it doesn't show me the impact, and I truly don't know what type of role you are applying for, as there is no context and it looks very generic and not tailored to a job family.