In my opinion, there shouldn't be.
Documents like these shouldn't be automatically processed, they should be reviewed by humans. Reducing someone's life history to a list of educational institutions and employers feels robotic even for a software developer's mindset.
I understand that there are real life problems because companies do use automated processing on applications, but that kind of behaviour shouldn't be encouraged.
>Documents like these shouldn't be automatically processed, they should be reviewed by humans.
That's very nice to think about but in the real world if people don't match some exact keywords they get thrown away. HR is looking for "node.js" but you wrote it like "nodejs"? Though luck pal, bye. HR wants a "computer scientist" but you have a degree in "computer science"? Same, automatically discarded.
If anything, a standard format would at least allow people to classify themselves/others correctly and without ambiguity.
HR is looking for "node.js" but you wrote it like "nodejs"? Though luck pal, bye. HR wants a "computer scientist" but you have a degree in "computer science"? Same, automatically discarded.
Fixing that would require not only a universal data format but also a universal taxonomy of terms to describe skills. That would need everyone to agree on how to describe what they do. Easy enough when you're describing programming languages, but effectively impossible for any softer skills. This is precisely why you need the human aspect.
The way to fix the issue you describe is to educate HR people, not to try to apply technology to a non-tech problem.
I'm pretty sure my Resume says "crazy outside-the-box madman" on it somewhere near the top. It pretty much guarantees that I work somewhere with a sense of humor while rejected from places that take themselves too seriously.
Resumes aren't just a list of skills and work history (education isn't even on my resume anymore), it's also a chance to let a small amount of your personality show through so you stand out against the pile.
Of course, if you're submitting to a big corp, you'll be fighting against AI reading your resume first, so, write for that if that's how you roll. I usually only apply to smaller companies that apparently end up as bigger companies by the time I move on.
Fixing that would require not only a universal data format but also a universal taxonomy of terms
A regular HR can only do CTRL-F CTRL-V efficiently in their PDF viewer, when automated system would likely test for /\bnode(?:\.?js)?\b/i, because it's a result of a development cycle, which usually includes some field analysis. HRs would LOVE to select something like "where has($node) and years($redux) >= 2 order by years($php) desc". They are not idiots, they just have piles of data and nonsensical tools. Of course they optimize for nonsense.
A human could search for different variations too, but they are average in average and have no the expertise to install a regex-able viewer. It's stupid little things like this that prevent them from doing their job better, not some systemic issue of their own.
> The way to fix the issue you describe is to educate HR people, not to try to apply technology to a non-tech problem.
I wish it was easier to do. At my first job after university (not my first job altogether) we initially had great rapport between "DCOps" and HR. To be honest, our group was rather... irreverent, which made it even more interesting that we had such great rapport (we had all the stereotypes going for us, including female-only HR team and basement-dwelling male-only sysadmins).
But thanks to great cooperation, HR would do basic filtering on things they actually checked with us about, then forwarded us the CVs unmodified to give our own opinion before deciding whether to go with it or not.
Unfortunately some time later head of HR ended up let go due to some conflict with C-level I believe, and things slowly reverted to the mean :(
That's very nice to think about but in the real world if people don't match some exact keywords they get thrown away.
This isn't the "real world" you're referring to here -- it's the fin-de-big-tech bubble world where everyone and their dog is not only sold, smack-down drunk on the idea that Algorithms and Data are the Solution to Your Problems. They aren't of course -- it's just a giant hornswoggle. This "world" needs to end, and it needs to end soon.
My belief is that it will. But until it does, companies that run crappy ATSs (like there's any other kind) deserve the buzzword-gurgling, keyword-dropping candidate pool get. And developers who get "rejected" by these companies should be grateful for the sublime gift of this rejection -- and for the opportunity to laser focus on companies and teams that use their heads to hire, rather than a fleet of bots.
Snark aside - hiring managers that actually read resumes (and yes, actually at least skim each and every one -- really it ain't that hard) are golden to work for (other factors being equal). Really, you don't want to waste your time with companies that have drunken the ATS kool-aid. Really you don't.
That said, however:
HR is looking for "node.js" but you wrote it like "nodejs"? Though luck pal, bye.
It's "Node.js" with a dot. If you spell it "nodejs", that's a serious red flag and you shouldn't be surprised if it gets you automatically discarded -- even by a human reviewer.
That's what resumes used to be, after all -- a kind of a take-home test where you really do have enough time (and perfect knowledge) to get everything 100 percent right. And also a test of your awareness of the fact that, yes, in critical business communications at least -- this level of correctness does matter, and it matters a lot.
> It's "Node.js" with a dot. If you spell it "nodejs", that's a serious red flag and you shouldn't be surprised if it gets you automatically discarded -- even by a human reviewer.
> That's what resumes used to be, after all -- a kind of a take-home test where you really do have enough time (and perfect knowledge) to get everything 100 percent right.
The only thing this filters for is people who have been looking for a job for a long time and/or are people focused on presentation instead of content, good luck with that.
We’ve hired incredible engineers across that have had typos and major resume mistakes many times and they had no communications problems on the job.
A resume is a background/interests check for the hiring manager. Giving them a spell check is about as useful as measuring the ratio of times the letter ‘a’ appears relative to ‘e’.
> critical business communications at least -- this level of correctness does matter, and it matters a lot.
This sounds like someone who is unable to contextualize when that would be relevant. Unless you’re writing user documentation there are zero times in an engineer’s day-to-day communications where writing nodejs instead of “Node.js” would have any impact at all.
>It's "Node.js" with a dot. If you spell it "nodejs", that's a serious red flag and you shouldn't be surprised if it gets you automatically discarded -- even by a human reviewer.
Oh, really!? I'll be very glad NOT to work at a company that throws aways candidates because of such triviliaties.
I think you might be conflating two things:
- resume keyword scan (automated or otherwise)
- leetcode interviews
The former I think you’re spot-on. If you’re serious about hiring, some qualified to do so needs to be reading resumes.
The latter is complicated. I tend to agree that the industry has over-pivoted to “dynamic programming whiteboard puzzle” as the LSAT of high-paying software work. But while most seem to agree that leetcode interviews suck in tons of ways, something that is unambiguously superior seems to be an open problem.
And some algorithms and data structure testing is important for hard software work. Even choosing the right library requires some basics. Is every SWE at Amazon implementing CS papers every month? No, clearly not. But unless machine resources are free in your domain, brute-force doesn’t always work.
FANG people do in fact get elitist about their CMU educations. But there’s another crowd that throws the baby out with the bath water: “I solve business problems, not reverse linked lists.” Well, what kind of business problems don’t involve some computation?
It’s a balance that our industry seems to still be trying to find.
I review every single resume and applicant I hire. My experience tells me talent acquisition professionals don’t really know how to match and will often suggest poor matches and not bring forward odd fits with interesting backgrounds.
I get hundreds posting into some of the roles I’ve hired for and I’ve got to look at every single one in order to find a possible match. It generally takes me about 30 seconds to a minute to assess a resume. A kernel of interest stands out quickly or a smoke screen of buzz words tells me it’s the wrong candidate.
Algorithms aren’t a substitute for an active hiring manager being really interested in finding the right candidate to join their team.
> HR is looking for "node.js" but you wrote it like "nodejs"? Though luck pal, bye. HR wants a "computer scientist" but you have a degree in "computer science"? Same, automatically discarded.
Wouldn't those issues be more likely to occur as a result of automated processing? I imagine that most humans who deal with technical hiring would guess that "node.js" and "nodejs" are probably the same thing.
This sounds like an issue of syntax vs semantics, both of which would be relevant to building any sort of fair (as possible) data format.
A standard would include standard forms of expressing things--there shouldn't be anything (other than names) that doesn't appear in their dictionary.
I think you might be underestimating the number of applicants that some companies deal with. I used to work for a firm that did analytics and surveying for the recruitment industry. While applicant to hire ratios in the tech industry might be 10 to 1, in many jobs you can easily be looking at 100 to 1. At those scales companies are using automated CV scanning tools and outsourced humans to whittle them down to a set that hiring managers can actually cope with. This is why many companies insist that you enter all the information into a structured form.
My basic rule of thumb is that the more structured and formal the CV submission process is, the worse the applicant to hire ratio will be, and so the more people you are up against.
For those of us in the tech industry, especially later in our careers, that probably isn't an issue, but in many other jobs, and earlier in your carreer, then it's going to be an issue. I remember having to re-enter my CV into ATSs back in 2001 for the big companies hiring graduates because they had so many to get throught, smaller companies just wanted your CVs.
Indeed if there were a standard format, there would be competitive advantages to using other channels to showcase your experience
That's already the case. You're much more likely to get hired if you know someone on the inside, if you've been recommended. If you apply through the official channels, you might not even get a response.
But I think an official format for CVs might not work so well because CVs in different fields aren't formatted in the same way. A programmer isn't going to put forward the same kinds of things as a musician or a professor in psychology.
As a hiring manager you’d be inclined to disagree.
If resumes could be standardized and easily searchable for information it would help find candidates much more accurately and quickly without having to read.
Even better would be if there was a verification standard where you could get a blue checkmark on your resume meaning all the information is accurate and not made up bullshit, then you could limit searches only to verified resumes and do less investigation or third party background checking.
It pushes industries forward.
That sounds like it pushes hiring managers forward, not industries. You get a benefit out of making it easier to fill open spaces, at the cost of everyone else's unique life experiences.
We have a "verification standard" in the form of diplomas and certificates and neither of those have fixed the hiring issue so far.
If you want to skip background checking, just make people bring their proof of certification with them to the job interview. Of course, those certifications barely mean anything in most fields of work, but it's an exact equivalent of the blue checkmark system you propose.
I get that hiring is hard, but that's why hiring managers exist in the first place. If we used a nicely standardised, automatically validated system, all recruiters and hiring managers would be out of a job. Why pay someone to do that stuff when you could pay a cheap machine learned AI to fill a list of requirements for you?
> If resumes could be standardized and easily searchable for information it would help find candidates much more accurately and quickly without having to read.
I see how that can be useful from the recruiting side of the table, but fail to see how the candidate benefits.
Think back to the first time you wrote a resume. For me and all of my college buddies at least, it was super stressful, because we had no idea what it was supposed to look like and nothing but vague rumors to go on. If there were a straightforward canonical answer for how my resume should be formatted it would have saved me quite a bit of work and quite a bit of stress that I was doing it wrong.
What if the blue checking organization becomes politicized and rejects your resume for arbitrary reasons?
You could probably only try to verify local education - for the foreign education not that easy. Even employment (even local) is very hard if possible at all. For example, I work for a large corp X as a contractor. It pays my agency Y. Y pays my umbrella company Z. Z pays me as its employee. There is hardly an easy way to link me to company X yet I've been there for 9 years.
Half the companies I've worked for have gone out of business or been acquired. Good luck verifying them.
Effective way to select for only young employees, I suppose.
I used to work in ontologies, and what I learned is that people would rather get an 80% heuristic solution for dirty data rather than a 100% correct solution for data they have to clean.
The big job sites have resume parsers that work well enough from a PDF or Word doc, and then they don't have to worry about you forgetting a close tag or a mandatory field. Sure, stuff gets lost, but they get 80% of a billion resumes rather than 100% of a million of them. They can't exchange data or even trust what they have, but it's good enough for them to make money. Meanwhile, a competitor demanding good data from its clients never gets off the ground.
Anyway, every data format for human information ends up being either vague (to allow in everything) or impossible (see the myths that programmers believe about names, time, addresses, etc.) You end up giving a string for each field... Then give up, just accept any string, and hope for the best.
Everybody wants Google or some machine learning solution because the formats never work for the information people want to convey. Better solutions could exist but the hacky ones are first to market, in a natural monopoly where there really only needs one good enough product.
If you think a lack of a good resume format is bad, look at electronic health records. Those are far more important to be correct and exchangeable, and even there the cleanup effort is always enormous.
that still doesn't really explain why big companies have not initiated a RFC for resume format. they only have to come up with an RFC and just ask everyone to follow.
The cost of producing such an RFC is so small. guaranteed reduction in inefficiencies including operational costs.
my gut feeling is that 20% improvement could have big butterfly effects.
They have - it's called HR-XML. It's mostly B2B but if you use EuroPass CV it's using this under the covers
Because they don't want to commit to it. It would instantly become legacy and an increasing thorn in their sides.
That was what I learned in ontologies: there is nothing so well understood and immutable that the business case won't change. It's so much easier to be vague than to be clear.
I too was convinced that people would rather have good clean data that they could trust, and it would save them a ton of money in the long term while costing a little up front. Maybe someone out there can sell that idea, but it wasn't me.
very little in resumes format changed in the last 50 years.
This hinges on a false dichotomy.
You can have the current sloppy parsers AND a jsonresume.org parser besides each other.
You can even hide the latter behind a tiny 'other upload formats' link, if you are afraid this option deters uploads of PDFs or docxs.
This is exactly what is done with invoices. You can get them as pdf that embed its content as xml, and the receiving ERP software that will load it will try to find the xml, or default to OCR.
> Those are far more important to be correct and exchangeable
In the US, those are far more important to be billable.
And that's the problem. Encoding the patient's medical state is simply an afterthought.
Ideally, there would be software to save your resume in this standardized format (perhaps a word extension), which would mean there would be no cases like missing close-tags.
We've built standardized metadata into all downloaded resumes with our resume software at https://rezi.ai
There is! https://jsonresume.org/
But nobody really uses it for data interchange. I use it to render my resume in new layouts now and then.
Although, it does let style dictate content sometimes (some templates force you to have dates down to the day for job start and end dates, etc.)
Json Resume is still going strong. I am one of the founders, I try to do a couple major maintenance periods per year. Currently I am working on updating all the community projects built, still got quite a few to add but currently there is -> https://jsonresume.org/projects/
I think over 3k+ people use the new Gist hosting. (In our old hosting we had around 10k resumes. Not including those who by pass the free community hosting)
On a personal note, I've loved having my resume in a standard;
- Depending on what type of company/person I am applying to I will change my theme on the fly. (Startup vibes I will make it look hipster, if it's a more formal role I will use a simple black and white theme)
- I use to lose my most recent resume constantly, having it in a Gist called resume.json that I just edit seems to have solved that for me.
- Hopefully one day a standard will get integration adoption so I can just upload my resume.json and not have to fill out the same form fields a hundred times.
List of resume.json's on gist.github.com -> https://gist.github.com/search?l=JSON&o=desc&q=resume.json&s...
Hey thanks for maintaining this project! I have been using it this round of applications and it’s just so much more convenient than trying to edit a historical doc(x) file with a rotating cast of word editors over the years.
Hey! Appreciate this product a lot, this has been my go-to with a One Page theme for years now :)
Why JSON? Why not YAML or something more easily editable by a human?
Could of went either way really, YAML is a superset of JSON, so in theory, you can switch between them at any time.
I think we wanted JSON at the time because it just relied on less extra packages when working inside of the JS ecosystem.
So yeah, if anyone wants to make a resume.yaml, we only need to add an extra step to convert it to json for them to use any of the tooling.
I used a JSON resume once and I like the idea. It didn't help when I had to apply for an unemployment benefit (while still trying to enter the industry) and they asked for my resume as a word document.
As you can imagine, I felt like a clown trying to explain that I didn't have a word document because my resume was generated from a JSON file.
I did, however, have a PDF on a USB drive I always kept on me but they refused to accept USBs out of fear that I was trying to give them a virus. Eventually the lady processing my application gave up and printed the PDF off that was hosted on my website but also scolded me for not having a word doc.
The whole ordeal was pointless anyway since they said they can give me 70% of my rent.
I have my resume in markdown so I can create a word/pdf/html etc. with pandoc. It would be possible to write something that parses a json resume into markdown so it could be trivially format shifted
One of those pdf-to-docx online converters would’ve probably been good enough for this.
My JSON resume is transformed to docx, and only latter to PDF for exactly this reason.
tl;dr - HR is underfunded / under-resourced / un-aspirational.
Even if there were a turn-key software platform they all used, which natively supported a standard data format, they'd still find a way to screw it up.
I came across this before. wish it's an accepted format on job portals.
A challenge I see is -- resumes change wildly by industry.
a tech resume is totallly different from an actor's resume.
Do you think this is so different that no formal spec can ever carry the common denominator?
https://www.cityheadshots.com/blog/acting-resume check this out
but I think this complexity can be handled.
I totally support json resumes.
That's not really a "universal format", though. That's an "English language format". Actually, it's an "American format" since I see it specifies "organization" instead of "organisation".
Why should resumes in Vietnam or China be using English, after all.
Doesn't that hold true for any standard though?
In HTTP we have Get, Put, Post, Delete, Patch or Options and not obtenir, mettre, poster, supprimer, corriger, options. Yet the French use the web all the time, as do Chinese or Maui.
It would not be about how the fields are named, but about localised concepts. Maybe there are societies that have some educational concept which western Americans cannot fathom, but which is crucial on a CV there.
This,implies the standard needs to be flexible, extensible and localised. Which kindof defeats having a standard.
That's fair point. But normal French people aren't interacting with HTTP directly in any meaningful way. (More snarkily: they're using browsers built by Americans to connect to webservers built by Americans.) But I imagine that 99% of people who use json-resume today are interacting directly with it.
So I suppose that parallel suggests it depends on whether there's a realistic expectation of WYSIWYG editors for any kind of universal resume format. Which I think seems incredibly unlikely.
That's true of the fields in the JSON, but for what it's worth you can output your resume in templates for any language you like. I've updated mine to use Hiberno English for instance.
HR people don’t like changing their procedures.
I’ve done numerous interviews large corporations where the first part of the interview process involved copying my printed resume by hand onto sheets of paper so that someone could then type in what I had written into a web browser. Why they couldn’t just copy from my printed resume or accept soft copy in word or ascii I have no answers for.
When I joined at Chase Manhattan it was very obvious that their onboarding process is designed for large groups - many dozens of people at a time - but the day I joined I was the only one being hired. I spent a couple hours with just myself and a single HR rep going through a half dozen rooms, in each room I had to sit as far back and to the left as possible whereas she sat at the front right of the room. She could not pass out forms until I was seated, at which point I would have to come get the form from her and return to the far side of the room to fill it out, then bring it back to her, return to my seat, then she would announce we were moving to the next room, and it would begin again. When I tried to sit at the front of the room she became extremely agitated and refused to continue until I returned to the back of the room, when I tried to get a form from her without first sitting in the back of the room same result. The rest of the company is pretty much the same, it never got better.
That's a practical example on why we are so prone to associate "HR people" to "HR drones"!
That sounds like an incredibly unsettling experience.
It might be. On the other hand such a company is a dream come true if you want a stable paycheck, do piss-all and focus on your own projects instead. Just do your bare minimum and relax.
Not sure why it would be. Huge companies are bureaucracies and bureaucracies have procedures. The HR person was just following the procedure so she didn't get fired. You really can't blame her for that. I could see finding it frustrating but I don't think of it as strange or frightening.
Typical legacy bureaucracy.
- worked at a place where they printed A3 excel sheet to write new prices on paper with a pencil
- courthouse procedures are peak redundancy, it's like the opposite of any database normalization 101, the more you copy the same data in various formats the better, and do not question why. It's systemically settled, since everybody expect the data to look like this, any deviation will trigger anxiety, and since they have no information management training they will scream for missing data even though there's still 12 copies of it scattered around the page, just like the emacs keyboard xkcd blended with the old waiting room social mirroring experiment
There are three different common standards: HR Open Standards Candidate, schema.org and JSON Resume. HROS (which does XML and JSON) is used as a data exchange format between enterprise ATS and HRIS it's very comprehensive and is very detailed (perhaps too detailed). Schema.org seems mostly like Google and friends just making something up (without even trying to work with other existing standards) and trying to get everyone to use it. JSON resume is about what it sounds like it is. Oh, and then there are various de facto standards where ATSes that work with job boards like Indeed or data vendors like People Data Labs... So there's a lot of standards. The problem is:
a good standard is one everyone uses.
Personal opinion: resumes are actually kind of hard. I've personally been involved in HR Open Standards and even though it is a very complete standard, it's still hard to map real world resumes into the format sometimes. There is a shocking amount of ambiguity, and a shocking amount of adjacent standards (some of those have been adopted) for describing work history, education, certifications, people and workplaces.
So... most of the industry just parses resumes into some internal schema, and a lot of employers make job seekers enter their education and history on a job application form so they get it their way. It's really messy. Hope that helps.
Schema.org doesn't have anything for the resume side of things. They have a model for a job listing, so job listings can appear in search results with special formatting, but nothing for resumes.
HR Open Standards is only available with membership. Doesn't appear very "open", but I'd assume that doesn't matter much to the industry.
JSON Resume seems like the best take so far. I've used it for my resume and at my current job, and, although we've had to extend the schema, it's a great base to start with. It's got all the structured fields one would need to build a resume. It would be trivial for a company to start accepting it, at least as a way to pre-fill all the "education and history" fields that we have to fill out anyway.
>HR Open Standards is only available with membership. Doesn't appear very "open", but I'd assume that doesn't matter much to the industry.
Membership is free and you can access the standards (from their website hropenstandards.org):
"The versions of HR Open Standards linked below are available for free public download. You need to be logged in to download the standards. If you're not already an HR Open Standards member, you can register for a free Community membership account."
Schema.org treats resume data as an extension of person. There's hasOccupation and role and alumniOf and organizationRole. It's not a "resume" it's a profile (old joke for job board people).
The EU has tried to put one in place, and it is used for all EU funding programmes and by a number of national and local administrations in Europe, so probably tens of millions used per year.
Not sure I like the format but its good it stresses experience and narrative over just 'formal' data. And they have done it quite nicely that you can either download a template and work offline, or you can work in the browser and then download later again upload/import your CV to continue editing, make versions, etc without any data being stored on the server.
Yes - this is Europass CV. The XML schema is described at https://europa.eu/europass/en/eportfolio-interoperability (the web builder and I'm sure other tools attach the XML to the PDF you download so HR apps can easily make sense of it). It's a specialisation of HR-XML which was one of the first standards groups in this area (now part of https://www.hropenstandards.org).
I always use the Europass format. For an IT sysadmin job, it's not like I'm trying to prove that I know how to use a basic word processor. Or demonstrate the type of artistic design skills that go into coming up with my own format. I like the fact that by using something standard, I'm less likely to be judged on stuff like choice of font etc. It tends to cover key details in a fairly terse format well which at least leaves scope for more wordy explanations in a cover letter. I find I don't end up needing to tweak the CV much when adapting it for different job applications while any cover letter does tend to then be fully one-off.
That said, my record in actually ever landing a new job is fairly woeful but that may be more down to being poor in interviews.
Amazing - I have recently created a CV at the EU's job advert aggregation website, EURES, and that appears to be a separate thing? Great to have a standard when the own organization doesn't appear to follow it? wonder
I haven’t tried it, but you should find you can export to and from your EURES profile to Europass (and vice versa)- they are distinct, but connected.
Great tip - thanks! :)
Hiring companies might prefer to just have this as a "hoop."
There are, inevitably, some people who apply to a lot of jobs. Jobs they aren't qualified for. Low intent applications, where the applicant isn't really that interested. Etc.
Even if these are a minority, they apply to a lot of jobs. In any case, standardizing job applications (OP seems to be talking about application forms that are mostly resume-ish fields) just means more of these. More volume, more noise, probably not many more successful hires.
There's kind of the same dynamic on the other side. Most workers don't love the idea of submitting an indexable resume for employers to leaf through.
Sometimes a modicum of friction is helpful.
They should ask for a cover letter.
I agree that a hoop is needed - I recently posted a job on LinkedIn which has some kind of "click to apply" functionality, and it was clear that most of the applicants were just lazy clickers that probably hadn't even read the posting. On the other hand, if you make people jump through pointless procedural hoops, you're screening for people who are ok doing that.
Ask for a cover letter, you get people who actually want the job and hear from them why they are interested.
What's the point of a machine-compatible CV and a human-written cover letter? A human will need to sift through the same amount of information, except now they also need to read the long suck-up prose that you asked for.
The honest truth about why they want the job for most people is that they provide what you need and that they enjoy things like eating, having a roof over their head, and fun things to do with what's left over of the money you pay them.
Coming up with some drivel about how they've been entranced with Version_Five Inc's tech since they were twelve and how it's been their life-long dream to work with their famous Foobar Widget control language is a nice creative writing exercise but it hardly proves anything. If anything, it rewards lying and deceit to get hired quicker.
Many very capable people suck at writing, even if they are truly driven and interested, especially in the computer science field. A cover letter is a great screen for a job that involves a lot of writing, but for most jobs writing is only a side activity that shouldn't be treated as the main objective.
A cover letter is a screen too.
A cover letter is a kind of writing contest, or maybe it's perceived that way by a candidate. Writing about yourself can be stressful.
I'm not saying not to, ask for a cover letter. Just saying that this stuff is nuanced. Standardisation is great when you want very low friction. Job applications aren't frictionless, probably can't/shouldn't be. Some copy paste fields might be inelegant, but it's not changing the friction equation by much.
Sometimes a modicum of friction is helpful.
The thing is it's far more than a "modicum" in practice. There was a recent Harvard Business School study out there revealing that these systems are poorly calibrated (and/or these companies don't know how to use them), and as a result millions of candidates are getting rejected for reasons that are either specious (6-month resume "gaps" that may be due to normal life circumstances) or utterly meaningless reasons (like failing to match certain word combinations).
But I agree though that many HR departments would still love to use any tool that narrows the pool (however lossy the filter may be). Whether that is a good thing or bad thing or not is a matter of perspective.
In my view, it puts HR's own value and utility into question.
> 6-month resume "gaps" that may be due to normal life circumstances
Yep, that's me taking care of my mother undergoing cancer treatment.
people are coming from the angle of “why do I have to fill out a webform and not just upload a standard file for ingestion” but in terms of how much of computing is experienced today, that’s starting to seem like an antiquated notion… how many people are using phones or tablets to apply for jobs? they’re not doing much file managing directly… linkedin is already supplanting resumes
This is super obvious and software developers who use open source tend to always think that open source software is the solution.
Sometimes it’s an economics problem. Problems need incentives before they can be solved.
Yep. And it comes with network search too which your PDF resume does not have.
I always put my LinkedIn profile in my Cv. Recruiters often use LinkedIn to manage their candidates anyway.
Get a daily email with the the top stories from Hacker News. No spam, unsubscribe at any time.