One of the reasons people can't find employment....

mattcanary

pioneer22 wrote: »

So I am on the interview panel for a role where I work, and I've asked HR for the CV's we've had so far. Just a standard PA/Admin role.

Wow, do people not realise the indeed format for CV's is terrible, and just some of the basics are wrong, spelling, Format, content, cover letters are for other jobs.

I appreciate people are looking for jobs we've had about 200 people apply. A lot are from non relevant industries, barwork, cleaners etc. Which is fine people want to move around but there is literally nothing to say why they want the job and what transferable skills.

One of the guys in HR said when they rung one of the candidates they said "whose this, I've applied for so many jobs" At least pretend you know which job it is!!

Incredibly frustrating.

That's the DSS's sanctioning regime, as well as applying for jobs by internet for you.

mattcanary

pioneer22 wrote: »

Grammar and literacy isn't one of my strengths, curse of being dyslexic I guess.

And yet you criticise others' CVs for grammatical and spelling errors. That's irony!

mattcanary

gingerdad wrote: »

We don't anymore bother with any interviews from the job centre - too many people turning up with no interest in the job and just want a tick in the box.

What has this got to do with the Jobcentre? The OP is just talking about a job the company have advertised. Nothing about being arranged through the Jobcentre!

mattcanary

TELLIT01 wrote: »

There shouldn't be any problem analysing information from a well structured CV. Software is widely used to interrogate CVs rather than physically reading them. That software can work just as effectively on a generic CV format as it can on a company application form.

Using software is lazy, and less effective than a capable recruiter reading CVs himself/herself.

mattcanary

Claree__x wrote: »

The post was advertised on Friday, I'm not sure exactly what you want me to do about how many applications we got,

I don't know if I'm qualified to review CVs or not, but the person we hire is going to be wortking for me directly so it makes sense that I look at them, considering there are only 4 other employees in the business.

My point is that if people really want the job they should make their CV stand out and not fill it with platitudes and generic nonsense that I'm going to skim read. Your CV, and cover letter, are your pitch for getting the job - if you can't pitch it right, that's not my fault.

You can advertise in different places, and can make applicants apply in specific ways.

mattcanary

ringo_24601 wrote: »

"You're only as good as your last gig"

Unfortunately, recruitment is a blunt tool. If you are applying for a job where there are likely to be a large number of applicants then you're going to need to be shining out from a lot of others. If your last job was irrelevant to the job you are applying for then you don't stand much chance. Just the cruel way things work.

You need to be creative with your CV. It's not a 'nice and accurate history of your worke history' but a sales sheet for your next job

Not sure that is the case at all currently.
The company I currently work for, have found it difficult to recruit staff in the last six months. It's not a niche job at all.

Besides, if you just look at someone's last job, you are behaving like the herd, ie: what most other recruiters do.
That doesn't make this a wise way of doing things. In fact, it is more likely to be an unwise way of doing things.

mattcanary

pioneer22 wrote: »

You say redundant, unless you state the reason for leaving I say DISMISSED.

That's the way it works.

IDIOTIC COMMENT.
(That;s meant to be in capital letters, by the way)!

mattcanary

pioneer22 wrote: »

That's why your unemployed and don't have a job/can't get one.

Did he say he was unemployed/and or desperate for work?
You don;t seem to have a very open mind.

xapprenticex

i love seeing adults argue over the internet and communic8 (:cool:) with each other in ways they would never do face to face.

Lamentation

My immediate colleagues sift formal applications for admin assistant positions which often attract 150 applicants.

They say only a minority of really poor ones can be put down to JSA tick-boxing where someone is clearly not currently in employment and will write something terrible on their supporting statement like 'I'd really like this job' and nothing else.

They say that it appears that many applicants simply don't know that the sifters will count up how many of the essential and desirable criteria they meet and interview those who meet the highest. That's despite guidance on the application process that instructs that the applicants should do precisely this - provide specific examples of how they meet the criteria listed in the job description.

My colleagues say that there are many applicants who seem very qualified and experienced to do the role but sadly haven't shaped their supporting statement around the job description to prove they meet each essential and desirable criteria, that the applicants supporting statement waffles, that they probably meet more of the criteria in their real life experience than they have entered on their application form. Sifters cannot fill in the gaps - it is either met in the supporting statement or not.

When I apply for jobs, I tailor my supporting statement in the exact way that the job description lists the essential/desirable criteria, responding in the same order that it is listed and actually putting capitalised headers for each criteria in the JD and then provide brief but specific evidence that I fulfil it. At a glance, someone sifting it can check off that I meet everything without having to hunt through a page or two of cut and paste narrative.

My colleagues feel that it is ignorance about how to complete applications properly that trips up the applicants.

Having said that, they say that quite routinely around half of the people they interview perform terribly and a large minority invited to interview often withdraw at short notice or simply don't turn up.

In the role that I gained, they had to advertise it 3 times (the successful candidates of the first two rounds both accepted the position, then withdrew before they started). My colleagues received around 450 applications in total over those 3 recruitment periods, interviewed around 25 candidates (everyone who met all the criteria on the job description).

That basically means around 90% of candidates who applied didn't prove they met the criteria on the JD. Obviously, many would have met the essential criteria and were unlucky that they didn't meet all the desirable ones, as there were so many that met all 10, they were the candidates that were interviewed.