150 applications for one position!

Helvetica75

beedeedee wrote: »

Whenever we advertised posts, it was amazing how many had not read the simple instruction - "please fill in an Application Form for this position" or words to that effect. If they couldn't be bothered to do this and sent in a cv instead - they didn't even get an interview.

Why do you torture candidates? They apply for thousands of jobs to get an actual interview, is it fair to make them spend hours to fill in your form? Imagine they do this for hundreds of jobs. You are paid to filter CVs, it is your job. Why you make candidates rewrite their whole CV again in your form? If you are not satisfied with the CV of a candidate, just reject him, after all the CV is the mirror of a candidate.

bugslet

Helvetica75 wrote: »

Why do you torture candidates? They apply for thousands of jobs to get an actual interview, is it fair to make them spend hours to fill in your form? Imagine they do this for hundreds of jobs. You are paid to filter CVs, it is your job. Why you make candidates rewrite their whole CV again in your form? If you are not satisfied with the CV of a candidate, just reject him, after all the CV is the mirror of a candidate.

Sorry beedeedee for jumping in, but surely filtering is exactly what beedeedee does - the company asks them to do something fairly simple and they don't do it. It's a reasonable way to filter those out who either can't be bothered or are incapable of following simple instructions. And why go through the time and expense of contacting everyone who doesn't complete a form, to get them to do so when they have failed at the first hurdle?

How do you know it's hours long form? It might be a relatively basic one designed to make the process of choosing who to select for an interview easier and by being on a standardised form, is transparent in terms of selection.

To return to your OP, Helvetica, you are looking at jobs that attract a lot of applicants. If you don't like those odds, why not look at what jobs are around that have insufficient applicants?

FredG

I was told after getting my current role that there were 43 applicants for it. This is a role in a small city and with quite a few essential criteria to fulfill.


Doesn't seem a lot compared to some of the numbers here but it still surprised me. Back in 2009 I was assisting conducting interviews for call centre jobs and we had around 50 applicants for 10 roles.


Again, my examples are observational and circumstancial but there's been a massive change in the jobs market, I'm sure of it.

bugslet

I think there has been Fred. Used to be able to get hold of as many truck drivers as you wanted, now there's, (from personal interpretation), just about the right number. But with 35,000 a year losing their licenses due to retirement or ill-health annually and only 18,000 new entrants a year, it doesn't take a maths genius to see there's a problem brewing.

I do think that the rise of internet based job searches means that you get people seeing a job they would never have seen advertised in pre-internet days.

Kynthia

I work in a large finance department in the public sector. Accounts Assistant posts have alway attracted huge numbers of applicants in the last 12 years. They would cap sending out application forms at 100, then not everyone would take the time to complete the form which would reduce the numbers. Then paper sifting would select the best 3-4 candidates for ever 1 job available. To interview more is a waste of everyone's time and is likely to put a few candidates through unnecessary stress when they are unlikely to be successful against the others.

Posts that are entry level in a profession have always received large volumes of applicants and I don't think it's a reflection on the current job market. Just like jobs in schools are always popular as there's always high demand from working mothers who'd love a local job with school holidays off.

Takeaway_Addict

Helvetica75 wrote: »

Why do you torture candidates? They apply for thousands of jobs to get an actual interview, is it fair to make them spend hours to fill in your form? Imagine they do this for hundreds of jobs. You are paid to filter CVs, it is your job. Why you make candidates rewrite their whole CV again in your form? If you are not satisfied with the CV of a candidate, just reject him, after all the CV is the mirror of a candidate.

They do filter it, by removing those that can't follow a very simple instruction. If they can't or won't do that then they are likely to not be able or won't follow other simple instructions in employment.

If you don't like how the employer wants things done then simply do not apply.

Helvetica75

Come on, I have been rigorously applying for jobs the last 5 years. Most forms are clearly a torture. They could ask you to complete a test or a few questions, that would be a reasonable method of filtering. Not entering your whole education history, work history, professional memberships, etc again! But they want the CVs standardised, that's why they do it. Not to mention unis. If you apply for a uni job, they all have the same standard form, hugely extensive, but you cannot use the details to apply to another uni!

tomtontom

Helvetica75 wrote: »

Come on, I have been rigorously applying for jobs the last 5 years. Most forms are clearly a torture. They could ask you to complete a test or a few questions, that would be a reasonable method of filtering. Not entering your whole education history, work history, professional memberships, etc again! But they want the CVs standardised, that's why they do it. Not to mention unis. If you apply for a uni job, they all have the same standard form, hugely extensive, but you cannot use the details to apply to another uni!

How did you get on with your McDonald's application?

Polarbeary

Plenty of jobs in healthcare! My friend works at a large hospital in the south-west and they have 100 nursing vacancies...30 people applied for the 100 jobs. St Barts NHS Trust is short of 1500 nurses and apparently there is a 5000 shortage of nurses in London!

Same with Occupational Therapy...especially OTs working for London councils and London NHS Trusts. I was speaking to somebody who works for a large London Trust running their internal temporary staffing bank. They recruit constantly for medical secretaries as they don't have experienced meds secs apply.

Seem to be plenty of PA jobs in London too. I was on the recruitment panel when my team wanted a new PA. We had to re-advertise as hardly anybody applied! That was a 29K job for someone with a year or two of experience working in the City.

divadee

Just advertised a position. It closes tonight. It's a part time 20 hour a week job and term time only and I fell over yesterday when the applicants reached 79! Last time we advertised the same job (different location; the person hasn't left already) we had only 15. Don't know what's happened recently.