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.
You do realize those “HR” people doing the screening are recruiters that work directly with the hiring manager and pass all their notes from the call to the hiring manager. As a previous hiring manager in a fortune 10 company I had complete access to the requisition and everything that came in, I just relied on the recruiter to look at the 75+ resumes that came in for our role because 95% of them shouldn’t have applied in the first place they didn’t meet any of the preferred qualifications.
If you're relying on the recruiter, wow. My experience (this is for scientific and engineering jobs primarily) as an employee applying for jobs and as a hiring manager hiring for those jobs, is HR tends to make two critical mistakes: They tend to screen out some of the most qualified people and screen in the unqualified. So not only are they ineffective in weeding out the unqualified, but they are a net negative in weeding out the most qualified.
Let me give one example. I applied for a position I knew I was qualified for. This application required transcripts at the application stage. Got a rejection letter saying I was unqualified. Somehow I was able to actually get hold of the HR screener (can't call her a recruiter because she was un-recruiting). She told me I didn't have enough math to qualify, when my transcripts clearly showed way more than enough. She said I only had one math course. So I started going down the list: calculus of single variable, calculus of multiple variables, differential equations, partial differential equations, and so on. That's when she stopped me and said non of those were math courses. Told me that if it were math, it would say the word "math." As in Math101, Math102.
In the years since, I have continued to observe the same thing as a hiring manager at several locations and different HR departments. I get hundreds of resumes of unqualified applicants from HR and I know for a fact that qualified applicants get screened out.
"Where's your PhD from, Doctor? Oh, you don't have one? Then what gives you the qualifications, the right, to build such a list and harm my client? We'll see you in court!".
Slander and libel are two serious charges, especially when you don't have the credentials that might save you.
Let me give one example. I applied for a position I knew I was qualified for. This application required transcripts at the application stage. Got a rejection letter saying I was unqualified. Somehow I was able to actually get hold of the HR screener (can't call her a recruiter because she was un-recruiting). She told me I didn't have enough math to qualify, when my transcripts clearly showed way more than enough. She said I only had one math course. So I started going down the list: calculus of single variable, calculus of multiple variables, differential equations, partial differential equations, and so on. That's when she stopped me and said non of those were math courses. Told me that if it were math, it would say the word "math." As in Math101, Math102.
Semi-relevant anecdote. A friend worked at a large warehouse type store, and had a colleague who spoke English and Greek. One day that colleague was summoned to the office and told he was being fired for lying on his application. He was told he had lied about being bilingual, because he didn't speak Spanish. He replied that bilingual means you are fluent in two languages. The HR rep in the meeting said "no, bilingual means you speak Spanish and English". The guy still got terminated, since the manager didn't want to admit a mistake.
I do not think HR has as much power as you seem to think they do. They follow corporate policies, and they use the weeding out software that the corporation has purchased. In my field, HR cowards resumes to the regional manager in the area that needs coverage. They don’t accept or reject applicants themselves.
I think the software they use is probably the bigger issue, but the HR people don’t have any control over that. I have filled out online applications I never heard anything back, but then when I contact the company HR office directly, I end up getting hired. I don’t think they ever saw my online application.
People who let HR control their career are doing things completely wrong. HR has no authority on who gets hired in the end. If you are searching for jobs/income by going through HR all of the time then you are not skilled at this at all.
Likely true, but your post just admitted that the HR/applicant tracking system was thus broken beyond repair if it's only used about 15-20% of the time. One then has to wonder if it's only used to meet with absurd government laws, as an excuse for companies to get their "data" to say they didn't find any qualified Americans and thus need illegals or H1Bs to do the jobs, that the HR online processes are more used for data mining and selling people's information than actual hiring, that it's keep around because if enough people realized it was a fraud, they'd just go to networking from the get go and thus HR and a lot of bureaucratic paper pushers would no longer be able to justify their jobs and would get a pink slip, because if the truth came out, their lies that the education system was all to blame and that it was the reason they couldn't find enough candidates would come under massive scrutiny when the public realized how bad the recruiting/hiring system was, etc.
But none of the above is based on HR people deciding anything. The company decides what software to use and what criteria to screen for in that software. My mother worked in HR for a bank for years. She had applicants take a math test which you had to get a certain score to go to next level, but my mother didn't have the power to decide what score was needed, that came from corporate. She only followed the procedures they told her to follow. HR people also handle benefits and other things like that so I doubt they will get pink slips.
Semi-relevant anecdote. A friend worked at a large warehouse type store, and had a colleague who spoke English and Greek. One day that colleague was summoned to the office and told he was being fired for lying on his application. He was told he had lied about being bilingual, because he didn't speak Spanish. He replied that bilingual means you are fluent in two languages. The HR rep in the meeting said "no, bilingual means you speak Spanish and English". The guy still got terminated, since the manager didn't want to admit a mistake.
At least the HR person knew bilingual meant language, even if they thought it was only English and Spanish.
But none of the above is based on HR people deciding anything. The company decides what software to use and what criteria to screen for in that software. My mother worked in HR for a bank for years. She had applicants take a math test which you had to get a certain score to go to next level, but my mother didn't have the power to decide what score was needed, that came from corporate. She only followed the procedures they told her to follow. HR people also handle benefits and other things like that so I doubt they will get pink slips.
Modern HR has moved way beyond that type of transactional work. And that's really the problem most of us are thinking of. With CHCOs (or whatever name a particular company uses), HR is inside the strategic decision making at the C-suite table. HR policies may come down from corporate, but HR writes the policies for the C-suite to sign. HR recommends the software to use. So it's a bit disingenuous for HR to say they don't make decisions. They may not technically make the actual decision, but they constrain the decision space to their preferred outcomes.
You do realize those “HR” people doing the screening are recruiters that work directly with the hiring manager and pass all their notes from the call to the hiring manager. As a previous hiring manager in a fortune 10 company I had complete access to the requisition and everything that came in, I just relied on the recruiter to look at the 75+ resumes that came in for our role because 95% of them shouldn’t have applied in the first place they didn’t meet any of the preferred qualifications.
that such a too naive world view, ignoring everything we talked about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnff
If you're relying on the recruiter, wow. My experience (this is for scientific and engineering jobs primarily) as an employee applying for jobs and as a hiring manager hiring for those jobs, is HR tends to make two critical mistakes: They tend to screen out some of the most qualified people and screen in the unqualified. So not only are they ineffective in weeding out the unqualified, but they are a net negative in weeding out the most qualified.
Let me give one example. I applied for a position I knew I was qualified for. This application required transcripts at the application stage. Got a rejection letter saying I was unqualified. Somehow I was able to actually get hold of the HR screener (can't call her a recruiter because she was un-recruiting). She told me I didn't have enough math to qualify, when my transcripts clearly showed way more than enough. She said I only had one math course. So I started going down the list: calculus of single variable, calculus of multiple variables, differential equations, partial differential equations, and so on. That's when she stopped me and said non of those were math courses. Told me that if it were math, it would say the word "math." As in Math101, Math102.
In the years since, I have continued to observe the same thing as a hiring manager at several locations and different HR departments. I get hundreds of resumes of unqualified applicants from HR and I know for a fact that qualified applicants get screened out.
Thank you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by liveurdream
People who let HR control their career are doing things completely wrong. HR has no authority on who gets hired in the end. If you are searching for jobs/income by going through HR all of the time then you are not skilled at this at all.
You give me the contact of the hiring mangers, because there is no other way of getting that information. If you fail to provide it, then your suggestion turns into garbage.
Some times hr does pre-screening, some times post screening veto. Their criteria is as described above.Some times the hiring manager wants to hire their best candidate ever, while hr blocks them completely. This happened to me.
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.
