Job applications - a rant!!!

CCFC_80

DKLS wrote: »

Didn't they teach you how to screen CVs? its a useful skill there is Hr software that will do it for you now, but still useful, i can go through 100 Cvs and produce a short list in less than an hour. Trick is not to read but scan for the info you require then produce 4 piles:
Interview
Maybe
Fat chance
Retain for comedy value and office mockery.

Oh yes good old HR software....

Candidate 1 puts on CV that he has 20 years experience working with a computerised accounting system

Candidate 2 puts on CV that he used a Sage 500 computeriesed system whilst temping for a week and candidate 2 gets put forward for an interview:D

mustang121 wrote: »

It works both ways. I don't bother applying for jobs that have spelling mistakes on the Job advertisement and / or application form.

Or application forms that do not have enough room in the boxes on them just to enter the basics and my biggest gripe on application forms is expecting to know what salary you earnt in jobs 10 years ago.:eek:

gettingready

:rotfl:..................or have to fill them in by handwriting....:rotfl:

gettingready

FBaby wrote: »

In the end, the only people losing out are those who are interested in the job, but give themselves no chance to get it.

Nope - employer looses out on potential GREAT candidates as they can not bothered to go though ancient application process and go somewhere else...:D

xapprenticex

DKLS wrote: »

Didn't they teach you how to screen CVs? its a useful skill there is Hr software that will do it for you now, but still useful, i can go through 100 Cvs and produce a short list in less than an hour. Trick is not to read but scan for the info you require then produce 4 piles:
Interview
Maybe
Fat chance
Retain for comedy value and office mockery.

I've had some right crackers, good ol' laugh in the office.

Fionabell

dkls wrote: »

didn't they teach you how to screen cvs? Its a useful skill there is hr software that will do it for you now, but still useful, i can go through 100 cvs and produce a short list in less than an hour. Trick is not to read but scan for the info you require then produce 4 piles:
Interview
maybe
fat chance
retain for comedy value and office mockery.

bib - rofl:d:d:d

FBaby

gettingready wrote: »

Nope - employer looses out on potential GREAT candidates as they can not bothered to go though ancient application process and go somewhere else...:D

No, a GREAT candidate who really wanted the job would still go through the process to get it, even if they didn't believe in the system. Then would then, after a time for adaptation, do an evidence based business case to show that the current recruitment process is not as efficient as could be No loss!

skea56

We had a bit of a recruitment drive about 6 months ago, when due to a new branch opening, we had a number of posts available.
There were a few manual/factory based roles, for which we asked candidate to fill out a short 2 page application form,
The office based roles had a more detailed format:
Cover letter
2 page CV, with short background and details of 3 most relevant jobs
2 referees
These were to be emailed or posted before the closing date which was 3-4 weeks after advertising.
Also as there were a number of different roles, candidates were also asked to specify the job role they were applying for.

We didnt work out too badly for the factory posts - most applicants had to come in for a manual test anyway instead of an interview as such, and we appointed 6 new employees who are still here today.

The office jobs on the other hand were more problematic - there was about 120-130 applicants over the 4 posts:
-a good 60-70% didnt bother to specify what job they were after, and it was difficult in most cases to guess what they were applying for from their CV.
-I think I counted about 30 with cover letters, and most of these looked copied and pasted - not reference made to the company or the post being applied for
-half of the CV's were strewn with spelling and grammatical errors
-general layout was poor in quite a few; large fonts and strange formatting
-life stories running into 5-6 pages with irrelevant information
-one candidate spent a whole page on their hobbies and interests, and yet about 3 lines on each of their previous job roles.
-"Referees on Request"...eh we specifically ask for them!!!!

We had major difficulty filling the roles, and in fact one of them is still vacant as no-one was suitable. The successful candidates were those who had obviously taken a few moments to research the company - we are online, and have a reasonable social media presence.- and were able to relate their own CV details to the roles offered.

This really should be something taught at schools

sk56

gettingready

FBaby wrote: »

No, a GREAT candidate who really wanted the job would still go through the process to get it, even if they didn't believe in the system. Then would then, after a time for adaptation, do an evidence based business case to show that the current recruitment process is not as efficient as could be No loss!

Nah.... let's agree to disagree

gettingready

skea56 wrote: »

-"Referees on Request"...eh we specifically ask for them!!!!

Sorry but I would not provide referees details before a job offer was in place.

If someone is changing jobs, last thing they want is for PROSPECTIVE employer to bother their current one - and some would do this even before an interview. Which is simply wrong as current employer does not need to know their staff are looking to move on.

So yup. "Referees on request" - after the job offer is in place..

BigAunty

I am a reluctant filler in of formal job application forms and much prefer tailoring my CV to a role. Not a fan of Civil Service Recruitment practices.

For example, a recent role with the Civil Service required me to submit x6 competency statements (1500 words in total and adhering strictly to the STARR formula within the related framework - approx 17 words to outline the Situation, 19 words on the Task to be undertaken, 100 words to describe the action, 100 words to describe the result and about 14 words to reflect upon it and say how you may have done it differently).

Plus it also required a complete entry of all my career history to date which started in 1986 and an estimated interview time in front of a panel of up to 1 hour.

It is the second lowest Civil Service grade so I don't think there's a very horses for courses approach. In roles of a similar grade in very unpopular customer contact centre roles with high attrition rates and recruitment issues (Benefit and tax helplines, etc), the Civil Service magically accepts a CV and perhaps a short telephone test.

Another Civil Service job required me to enter competency statements, plus supporting statements for 6 desirable and essential criteria, plus full career history and full education background.I estimated the competency statements alone would take 2500 to 3000 words. I didn't have 3 days to spare so that was the end of that but if I wanted to use up my annual leave to finish it, that was an option.


In my current public sector job, I applied in the Spring and started in late winter - around 7 months recruitment span.

Whereas a similar position or level of job in the private sector requires me to send in a CV to an agency via a recruitment website (30 mins shaping the CV, populating the cover letter) where I can expect a 25 interview about my skills, qualifications and experience with my potential line manager and where, if successful, I could start within a week .


I am a fan of the CV, naturally enough.