Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
While some people disagree with what the OP said, I think what really angers people, especially job seekers is HOW the OP said those things.
Some of the advice is ridiculous - like about people not making small talk or just sitting there silent and only talking tech stuff. I mean cummon, who does that unless you are an incredible nerd and don't leave your mom's basement. People are pissed off when they are fully qualified, sociable and hard workers, yet they are rejected because they didn't fill some random criteria like live within 30 miles, or maybe they had 1 year less experience than was required. Big woop.
So in your experience as a hiring manager or recruiter you found most applicants to be very easy to talk to about the non work related things that you may have attempted to talk about to break the ice?
Also, what other bits of advice did the HR Director make that was ridiculous? I am looking for a job and don't want to take any bad advice.
The advice that I can give that has worked for me is the following:
1. Resume:
- stick to 1 page, if you need to spill over into two pages, just lump together some of your early experience, or cut it out all together. Employers usually look for the last 6-10 years of work history. They scan, etc.
- go the Harvard Business School or Columbia School of Business websites and view their resume samples. Make your resume like that. The formatting should be easy to read, but do not use colors other than black. Make it very standard looking unless you are in a more creative type of industry. USe common sense and tailor to your industry.
- use corporate speak. The stuff we laugh at like "leveraged cross functional teams to penetrate new verticals" actually works. It impresses people. Remember, the resume is like an advertisement of yourself. Stuff you see on TV has to impress you in 15-30 seconds so you can go out and at least try it out at the store.
- use language on resume and description section to show employer how you are going to benefit them. This applies to everyone, even the techie people, even scientists, etc. and makes you stand out. Do not try to be "above things" and rely only on your expertise in your field. For every guy that thinks he has unique skills and knowledge there are 50 others who are as good or better than him, and in many industries it is even more. You have to be competitive.
-The purpose of the resume and cover letter is to strictly get an interview with them, not to get you a job. You can't sell yourself on paper. You can only do so in person. Remember that.
2. Cover letter
-The jury is out on this one and whether employers actually read them. Include one anyway in case they do. I try to keep it short and express how excited I am about the company and the opportunity. Quickly highlight relevant experience and leave off with a soft close - such as, I am available to talk over the phone on Mondays and Tuesdays between 12-2PM or after 5PM, etc. Or, "I will follow up with you in three days regarding my application". It doesn't hurt, unless the ad specifies no calls, no e-mails.
3. At the interview-
-Be warm, do some small talk, look at the surroundings, etc. Common sense, unless you were raised by wolves.
-Ask questions, be specific, sell yourself. At this point if you were called in for an interview, the aim should be to get an offer. Once you get an offer the tables reverse and they start selling to you. Until then, you have to sell. Remember you are harder working than the 10 other people they are interviewing, you are going to do a better job, you are going to make them more money, etc.
4. The offer -
-Don't accept right away. They will think you are desperate and may try to make you a low ball offer.
- Negotiate salary, benefits, etc. Try to get something out. This will actually raise your perceived value.
Most important, try to have other options when negotiation, such as other offers or prospects. If you don't, at least try to act like you do. This is where your power lays in, when you have options.
And to add at the end - don't take rejection personally. As you have seen in the forum and in your own experience every hiring manager has their own set of quirks and criteria and will eliminate candidates for the most random and arbitrary thing. You can try and minimize this by making your entire presentation as competitive as possible, but you can't eliminate it all together. Ask 10 hiring managers how they select candidates and you will get 10 vastly different answers. It's pretty crazy.
Lets take a posters opinions, and try to give some intelligent answers they apparently are not aware and how the system has to work.
Hmmm. Let's take a moment and reflect on why that hostility may exist.
The implementation of software programs that screen out 90% of potential qualified applicants before a human even has to look at their resume.
A company may get 2,000 applicants for a position. A huge percentage will be from people that are not qualified for the job. A lot of posters say they apply for any job, even if they only meet part of the requirements for the job. The company is not interested in people that are not fully qualified. The computer will sort these out as they come in, which would take hours and hours of several people to do it by hand. The company does not want to spend a few hundred dollars sorting out applications that are not going to be considered as that person is not qualified for the job. They want to find the ones that are qualified for the job. The computer is just a tool to sort them out.
Forcing applicants to take IQ tests and personality exams as part of the application process. Of course, that's only after making them succumb to filling out a 10 page "personal profile" just to be able to submit their resume and cover letter for consideration.
Again, companies need to find applicants that would fit into their organization, not only able to do the job, but will be able to interact with other employees and make it as happy a place to work as possible. The applicants may have had help from others to fill out a personal profile, but they are without a doubt the one that is taking the test.
Not putting salary info on the job posting, yet demandind that applicants tell their earnings history so it can be used as a tool by the hiring manager to lowball them in salary negotiations if they ever even get to that point.
The company knows what the salary offered is going to be. They know what the going rate of salary for the local area is for a certain job. The problem is, a lot of applicants want a lot more money than the going rate in the local area. I see young people on these threads complaining, that they want $50,000 or more as they have big education loans and they have to have that much money, and complain the company low balled them at $35,000 and they won't work for that. Problem is, that $35,000 is the going rate for a starting position for the particular degree held by the applicant, and the job, which matches going rate in the local area.
Not being honest with the job duties on the job posting.
It is impossible to put all the job duties in a posting. Experienced people would understand what the duties involve for a particular job.
Disqualifying potential candidates from an interview even after their history shows they meet 100% of the preferred qualifications, and then not stating the reason for the disqualification on the rejection letter (if there even is a rejection letter).
The applicant feels that they meet 100% of the preferred qualifications, but the HR department or HM feels that there are better qualified people. They will first interview the most qualified person, and then maybe move down to lesser qualified people if necessary. And a HR department is never going to tell any person rejected the reason they are not accepted. The real reason is, they found someone more qualified than you.
Posting jobs so external candidates can apply when the HR people know damn good and well they have no intention of hiring someone externally.
By some laws, court decisions, and union contracts they are required to post the job opening, even if they will eventually hire someone internally. But some lawmaker, or judge, has decided they have to post the job no matter what. The internal applicant has to also submit their application, and it is their application that is accepted. It is much cheaper and far less time consuming to just offer the job to an existing employee, but some law maker or administration rule maker, has decided they have to post it which they do. It is a wast of their time and money, but they have no choice.
Preferring to take a constant job hopper that's currently employed over 10 well qualified people who have been searching fruitlessly for work for the last six months.
If they feel the person is a constant job hopper, they don't want them either. However if the person is the highest qualified applicant they take the risk hoping they will stay with them.
HR managers saying they have only 10-12 seconds to spend on each resume, yet they somehow find the time to scour social media to find out what type of person certain applicants are in their private lives.
That 10 or 12 seconds, is all it takes to check certain criteria. If it checks out, they put it in one pile for further evaluation. If it does not, it is rejected. In that 10 seconds they cannot fully study and evaluate the entire application. They are just looking for key items, that the computer missed.
Denying applicants that appear to be over a certain age the opportunity for entry level management positions or management training positions even though they meet everything the job posting is looking for.............
A management training position, can take years to move the person into a position of power. It is a long term process, and they do not want the person to retire, before they are ready for a higher position that the one selected can reach after a long period of time. They are seeking someone for the long haul, not just the immediate starting position. On the other hand, a highly experienced older person will be preferred for a true management position eliminating the younger applicant with no track record.
Need I go on? This is just the tip of the iceberg.
The problem you have, is you do not understand how the real world works, and why things are done the way they are. A corporation, would like to have a smooth running operation. Never have to let some employees leave, and have to hire new ones. That would be the idea world. Problem, it does not work that way. To make it as easy on the company as possible, they have had to come up with some rules and standard operation procedures. You may not like them, but it is to make the companies operation as painless as possible for their staff, while acquiring the best people possible in the process.
The OP has tried to tell you how it works, and give you hints to beat the system and get jobs. The problem is, too many don't want to listen, and go on being unemployed. I personally never drew one cent in unemployment in my life, as I was never out of work more than a week. I have always been a salesperson, and have managed stores, and worked up to division sales manager for half the nation when in the corporate world. I was always paid on commission, or production by my salespeople, after leaving the Navy in 1954. I never drew a salary. I always was in the upper income bracket, starting at about $125,000 in today's dollars by the time I was out of the navy for a year.
I learned early on what the rules were, and could always get a job if I wanted it.
If the young people on this thread would quit complaining about the rules of getting a job, would learn to apply them, they would not find it hard to get a job even in today's tight job market. I am over 80 years old, and have been through numerous downturns, and was able to stay employed with a very upscale income up to 1971 when after taking courses from a university for a year, went into Real Estate Commercial Brokerage where I had my own office, and remained till I retired. It was in real estate, where I learned what a high income is.
It is too bad, that a lot of young people on these threads, will not listen to people like the OP, when they pass out very useful advice.
Lets take a posters opinions, and try to give some intelligent answers they apparently are not aware and how the system has to work.
Hmmm. Let's take a moment and reflect on why that hostility may exist.
The implementation of software programs that screen out 90% of potential qualified applicants before a human even has to look at their resume.
A company may get 2,000 applicants for a position. A huge percentage will be from people that are not qualified for the job. A lot of posters say they apply for any job, even if they only meet part of the requirements for the job. The company is not interested in people that are not fully qualified. The computer will sort these out as they come in, which would take hours and hours of several people to do it by hand. The company does not want to spend a few hundred dollars sorting out applications that are not going to be considered as that person is not qualified for the job. They want to find the ones that are qualified for the job. The computer is just a tool to sort them out.
Forcing applicants to take IQ tests and personality exams as part of the application process. Of course, that's only after making them succumb to filling out a 10 page "personal profile" just to be able to submit their resume and cover letter for consideration.
Again, companies need to find applicants that would fit into their organization, not only able to do the job, but will be able to interact with other employees and make it as happy a place to work as possible. The applicants may have had help from others to fill out a personal profile, but they are without a doubt the one that is taking the test.
Not putting salary info on the job posting, yet demandind that applicants tell their earnings history so it can be used as a tool by the hiring manager to lowball them in salary negotiations if they ever even get to that point.
The company knows what the salary offered is going to be. They know what the going rate of salary for the local area is for a certain job. The problem is, a lot of applicants want a lot more money than the going rate in the local area. I see young people on these threads complaining, that they want $50,000 or more as they have big education loans and they have to have that much money, and complain the company low balled them at $35,000 and they won't work for that. Problem is, that $35,000 is the going rate for a starting position for the particular degree held by the applicant, and the job, which matches going rate in the local area.
Not being honest with the job duties on the job posting.
It is impossible to put all the job duties in a posting. Experienced people would understand what the duties involve for a particular job.
Disqualifying potential candidates from an interview even after their history shows they meet 100% of the preferred qualifications, and then not stating the reason for the disqualification on the rejection letter (if there even is a rejection letter).
The applicant feels that they meet 100% of the preferred qualifications, but the HR department or HM feels that there are better qualified people. They will first interview the most qualified person, and then maybe move down to lesser qualified people if necessary. And a HR department is never going to tell any person rejected the reason they are not accepted. The real reason is, they found someone more qualified than you.
Posting jobs so external candidates can apply when the HR people know damn good and well they have no intention of hiring someone externally.
By some laws, court decisions, and union contracts they are required to post the job opening, even if they will eventually hire someone internally. But some lawmaker, or judge, has decided they have to post the job no matter what. The internal applicant has to also submit their application, and it is their application that is accepted. It is much cheaper and far less time consuming to just offer the job to an existing employee, but some law maker or administration rule maker, has decided they have to post it which they do. It is a wast of their time and money, but they have no choice.
Preferring to take a constant job hopper that's currently employed over 10 well qualified people who have been searching fruitlessly for work for the last six months.
If they feel the person is a constant job hopper, they don't want them either. However if the person is the highest qualified applicant they take the risk hoping they will stay with them.
HR managers saying they have only 10-12 seconds to spend on each resume, yet they somehow find the time to scour social media to find out what type of person certain applicants are in their private lives.
That 10 or 12 seconds, is all it takes to check certain criteria. If it checks out, they put it in one pile for further evaluation. If it does not, it is rejected. In that 10 seconds they cannot fully study and evaluate the entire application. They are just looking for key items, that the computer missed.
Denying applicants that appear to be over a certain age the opportunity for entry level management positions or management training positions even though they meet everything the job posting is looking for.............
A management training position, can take years to move the person into a position of power. It is a long term process, and they do not want the person to retire, before they are ready for a higher position that the one selected can reach after a long period of time. They are seeking someone for the long haul, not just the immediate starting position. On the other hand, a highly experienced older person will be preferred for a true management position eliminating the younger applicant with no track record.
Need I go on? This is just the tip of the iceberg.
The problem you have, is you do not understand how the real world works, and why things are done the way they are. A corporation, would like to have a smooth running operation. Never have to let some employees leave, and have to hire new ones. That would be the idea world. Problem, it does not work that way. To make it as easy on the company as possible, they have had to come up with some rules and standard operation procedures. You may not like them, but it is to make the companies operation as painless as possible for their staff, while acquiring the best people possible in the process.
The OP has tried to tell you how it works, and give you hints to beat the system and get jobs. The problem is, too many don't want to listen, and go on being unemployed. I personally never drew one cent in unemployment in my life, as I was never out of work more than a week. I have always been a salesperson, and have managed stores, and worked up to division sales manager for half the nation when in the corporate world. I was always paid on commission, or production by my salespeople, after leaving the Navy in 1954. I never drew a salary. I always was in the upper income bracket, starting at about $125,000 in today's dollars by the time I was out of the navy for a year.
I learned early on what the rules were, and could always get a job if I wanted it.
If the young people on this thread would quit complaining about the rules of getting a job, would learn to apply them, they would not find it hard to get a job even in today's tight job market. I am over 80 years old, and have been through numerous downturns, and was able to stay employed with a very upscale income up to 1971 when after taking courses from a university for a year, went into Real Estate Commercial Brokerage where I had my own office, and remained till I retired. It was in real estate, where I learned what a high income is.
It is too bad, that a lot of young people on these threads, will not listen to people like the OP, when they pass out very useful advice.
Your deeply-seated hatred towards young people has you blind to the fact that young people aren't the only ones responding in disagreement to the OP. Believe it or not, there are older people on here opposing some of the things OP has mentioned as well.
Lets take a posters opinions, and try to give some intelligent answers they apparently are not aware and how the system has to work.
Hmmm. Let's take a moment and reflect on why that hostility may exist.
The implementation of software programs that screen out 90% of potential qualified applicants before a human even has to look at their resume.
A company may get 2,000 applicants for a position. A huge percentage will be from people that are not qualified for the job. A lot of posters say they apply for any job, even if they only meet part of the requirements for the job. The company is not interested in people that are not fully qualified. The computer will sort these out as they come in, which would take hours and hours of several people to do it by hand. The company does not want to spend a few hundred dollars sorting out applications that are not going to be considered as that person is not qualified for the job. They want to find the ones that are qualified for the job. The computer is just a tool to sort them out.
Forcing applicants to take IQ tests and personality exams as part of the application process. Of course, that's only after making them succumb to filling out a 10 page "personal profile" just to be able to submit their resume and cover letter for consideration.
Again, companies need to find applicants that would fit into their organization, not only able to do the job, but will be able to interact with other employees and make it as happy a place to work as possible. The applicants may have had help from others to fill out a personal profile, but they are without a doubt the one that is taking the test.
Not putting salary info on the job posting, yet demandind that applicants tell their earnings history so it can be used as a tool by the hiring manager to lowball them in salary negotiations if they ever even get to that point.
The company knows what the salary offered is going to be. They know what the going rate of salary for the local area is for a certain job. The problem is, a lot of applicants want a lot more money than the going rate in the local area. I see young people on these threads complaining, that they want $50,000 or more as they have big education loans and they have to have that much money, and complain the company low balled them at $35,000 and they won't work for that. Problem is, that $35,000 is the going rate for a starting position for the particular degree held by the applicant, and the job, which matches going rate in the local area.
Not being honest with the job duties on the job posting.
It is impossible to put all the job duties in a posting. Experienced people would understand what the duties involve for a particular job.
Disqualifying potential candidates from an interview even after their history shows they meet 100% of the preferred qualifications, and then not stating the reason for the disqualification on the rejection letter (if there even is a rejection letter).
The applicant feels that they meet 100% of the preferred qualifications, but the HR department or HM feels that there are better qualified people. They will first interview the most qualified person, and then maybe move down to lesser qualified people if necessary. And a HR department is never going to tell any person rejected the reason they are not accepted. The real reason is, they found someone more qualified than you.
Posting jobs so external candidates can apply when the HR people know damn good and well they have no intention of hiring someone externally.
By some laws, court decisions, and union contracts they are required to post the job opening, even if they will eventually hire someone internally. But some lawmaker, or judge, has decided they have to post the job no matter what. The internal applicant has to also submit their application, and it is their application that is accepted. It is much cheaper and far less time consuming to just offer the job to an existing employee, but some law maker or administration rule maker, has decided they have to post it which they do. It is a wast of their time and money, but they have no choice.
Preferring to take a constant job hopper that's currently employed over 10 well qualified people who have been searching fruitlessly for work for the last six months.
If they feel the person is a constant job hopper, they don't want them either. However if the person is the highest qualified applicant they take the risk hoping they will stay with them.
HR managers saying they have only 10-12 seconds to spend on each resume, yet they somehow find the time to scour social media to find out what type of person certain applicants are in their private lives.
That 10 or 12 seconds, is all it takes to check certain criteria. If it checks out, they put it in one pile for further evaluation. If it does not, it is rejected. In that 10 seconds they cannot fully study and evaluate the entire application. They are just looking for key items, that the computer missed.
Denying applicants that appear to be over a certain age the opportunity for entry level management positions or management training positions even though they meet everything the job posting is looking for.............
A management training position, can take years to move the person into a position of power. It is a long term process, and they do not want the person to retire, before they are ready for a higher position that the one selected can reach after a long period of time. They are seeking someone for the long haul, not just the immediate starting position. On the other hand, a highly experienced older person will be preferred for a true management position eliminating the younger applicant with no track record.
Need I go on? This is just the tip of the iceberg.
The problem you have, is you do not understand how the real world works, and why things are done the way they are. A corporation, would like to have a smooth running operation. Never have to let some employees leave, and have to hire new ones. That would be the idea world. Problem, it does not work that way. To make it as easy on the company as possible, they have had to come up with some rules and standard operation procedures. You may not like them, but it is to make the companies operation as painless as possible for their staff, while acquiring the best people possible in the process.
The OP has tried to tell you how it works, and give you hints to beat the system and get jobs. The problem is, too many don't want to listen, and go on being unemployed. I personally never drew one cent in unemployment in my life, as I was never out of work more than a week. I have always been a salesperson, and have managed stores, and worked up to division sales manager for half the nation when in the corporate world. I was always paid on commission, or production by my salespeople, after leaving the Navy in 1954. I never drew a salary. I always was in the upper income bracket, starting at about $125,000 in today's dollars by the time I was out of the navy for a year.
I learned early on what the rules were, and could always get a job if I wanted it.
If the young people on this thread would quit complaining about the rules of getting a job, would learn to apply them, they would not find it hard to get a job even in today's tight job market. I am over 80 years old, and have been through numerous downturns, and was able to stay employed with a very upscale income up to 1971 when after taking courses from a university for a year, went into Real Estate Commercial Brokerage where I had my own office, and remained till I retired. It was in real estate, where I learned what a high income is.
It is too bad, that a lot of young people on these threads, will not listen to people like the OP, when they pass out very useful advice.
If you are over 80 then you have been out of the working world far too long to have any perspective on the abuse job seekers are facing. When you pull the "young whipper snappers..." card you instantly lose all credibility.
The implementation of software programs that screen out 90% of potential qualified applicants before a human even has to look at their resume.
A company may get 2,000 applicants for a position. A huge percentage will be from people that are not qualified for the job. A lot of posters say they apply for any job, even if they only meet part of the requirements for the job. The company is not interested in people that are not fully qualified. The computer will sort these out as they come in, which would take hours and hours of several people to do it by hand. The company does not want to spend a few hundred dollars sorting out applications that are not going to be considered as that person is not qualified for the job. They want to find the ones that are qualified for the job. The computer is just a tool to sort them out.
The issue is that the employer will post a job on their website, and some or all of the major job boards, and it has been made easy to apply for jobs. If I didn't have a day job, I could probably apply to at least 4-5 jobs in an 8 hour period, with a custom cover letter. If I send out generic cover letters, that number goes up a bit.
So, you get your high school drop out taxi driver who applies, as well as college grads or other people who could probably do the job with a little training, to people who are qualified (even just a little bit).
So, of course you're going to get 2,000 applicants to a job and you maybe want to talk to 5.
I have heard less than 10% of jobs are filled this way. So, it begs the first question, why are companies spending billions on Monster/Career Builder/Dice/Linked In/Stack Exchange and the associated systems to process all the applications as well as all the human time to scan through the results? It seems like a waste of time and money and resources to fill so few jobs that way.
Most jobs are filled by networking. I belong to several in person computer user groups over the years. Why aren't the powers that be showing up at these groups and actually meeting/talking to people to see what they do? Most people who show up at these meetings are people you want to hire; they are taking an interest in the industry, and are willing to share their knowledge which you can judge.
While some people disagree with what the OP said, I think what really angers people, especially job seekers is HOW the OP said those things.
Some of the advice is ridiculous - like about people not making small talk or just sitting there silent and only talking tech stuff. I mean cummon, who does that unless you are an incredible nerd and don't leave your mom's basement. People are pissed off when they are fully qualified, sociable and hard workers, yet they are rejected because they didn't fill some random criteria like live within 30 miles, or maybe they had 1 year less experience than was required. Big woop.
I personally don't think living outside of a 30 mile radius is insignificant. Would it automatically disqualify someone if I were interested in their qualifications and past contributions to their employer? No, the natural question that crosses an employer's mind is, "Can I find someone like this -- who's closer?" It's common sense. I've been in situations in which I had to commute from 75 miles away, and it took a major toll on me. I was limited in the number of hours I could commit to the job. In my case, the hours were flexible, but if it's a managerial position or if it's a production-based position and someone's going to spend an inordinate amount of time just getting to and from work...that's an issue.
The advice that I can give that has worked for me is the following:
1. Resume:
- stick to 1 page, if you need to spill over into two pages, just lump together some of your early experience, or cut it out all together. Employers usually look for the last 6-10 years of work history. They scan, etc.
- go the Harvard Business School or Columbia School of Business websites and view their resume samples. Make your resume like that. The formatting should be easy to read, but do not use colors other than black. Make it very standard looking unless you are in a more creative type of industry. USe common sense and tailor to your industry.
- use corporate speak. The stuff we laugh at like "leveraged cross functional teams to penetrate new verticals" actually works. It impresses people. Remember, the resume is like an advertisement of yourself. Stuff you see on TV has to impress you in 15-30 seconds so you can go out and at least try it out at the store.
- use language on resume and description section to show employer how you are going to benefit them. This applies to everyone, even the techie people, even scientists, etc. and makes you stand out. Do not try to be "above things" and rely only on your expertise in your field. For every guy that thinks he has unique skills and knowledge there are 50 others who are as good or better than him, and in many industries it is even more. You have to be competitive.
-The purpose of the resume and cover letter is to strictly get an interview with them, not to get you a job. You can't sell yourself on paper. You can only do so in person. Remember that.
2. Cover letter
-The jury is out on this one and whether employers actually read them. Include one anyway in case they do. I try to keep it short and express how excited I am about the company and the opportunity. Quickly highlight relevant experience and leave off with a soft close - such as, I am available to talk over the phone on Mondays and Tuesdays between 12-2PM or after 5PM, etc. Or, "I will follow up with you in three days regarding my application". It doesn't hurt, unless the ad specifies no calls, no e-mails.
3. At the interview-
-Be warm, do some small talk, look at the surroundings, etc. Common sense, unless you were raised by wolves.
-Ask questions, be specific, sell yourself. At this point if you were called in for an interview, the aim should be to get an offer. Once you get an offer the tables reverse and they start selling to you. Until then, you have to sell. Remember you are harder working than the 10 other people they are interviewing, you are going to do a better job, you are going to make them more money, etc.
4. The offer -
-Don't accept right away. They will think you are desperate and may try to make you a low ball offer.
- Negotiate salary, benefits, etc. Try to get something out. This will actually raise your perceived value.
Most important, try to have other options when negotiation, such as other offers or prospects. If you don't, at least try to act like you do. This is where your power lays in, when you have options.
And to add at the end - don't take rejection personally. As you have seen in the forum and in your own experience every hiring manager has their own set of quirks and criteria and will eliminate candidates for the most random and arbitrary thing. You can try and minimize this by making your entire presentation as competitive as possible, but you can't eliminate it all together. Ask 10 hiring managers how they select candidates and you will get 10 vastly different answers. It's pretty crazy.
this is someone who would be evaluating my resume...resume writing 101...check your spelling and grammar...
Many HR women are bimbos. They're hired more for their looks than for anything else.
OP's days are numbered.
We'll see how her pompousness works for her when she's out of work.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
