An Amazon recruiter said that his stats were:
3,500 job applications, 50 phone interviews, 8 onsite interviews and ONLY 3 full-time offers.
A lot of people say this is a broken system, while others say that 8 interviews to 3 hires is a great conversion. The real issue here is the 3500 job applications to 50 phone interviews process.
Have you ever been passed for a job at the resume level that you were well qualified for?
I was going to say 8 to 3 is not bad but the process of over 3000 to 50 is where theres a huge gap. Most likely they just run resumes through a machine and scan the wording to see who is the best fit. That's not a very new practice either it's been happening for a while.
Machine or not that's a lot of resumes to just scrap based on scanned and specific wording. If that's the case than I think it is definitely broken...
I agree somewhere in the middle.... SNBOCBurry is right about it not being new but at the same time that doesn't make it a great practice. I also get that with big companies and a huge pool of applicants it is not possible to read every single one.
Plus we are also assuming they immediately tossed 3450 and did 50 interviews. They could have narrowed it down to 1000 and read those by hand, then chose the 50. I mean they technically can't just create more roles to fulfill the amount of applicants they get
Comparing Amazon to other companies is a huge disparity though. In finance though for big banks, or any big company really, there's going to be a lot of competition. If you are working for a world class company with benefits and exposure lots of Ivy League's and pros will be fighting you to the top. Understandably
What do you think the chances are that those 8 people that received on sights knew someone at Amazon?
Honestly cannot answer that but a friend of mine works for a tech giant (think apple, google, microsoft) and received offers from all of them without an ivy league undergrad or a CS degree. She got it by grinding and having a very intricate and specific resume for each company. She ended up only getting one legit offer but they all complimented her resume. I think people don't try enough on them and expect to get all the way through
High. I think that's what missing here - it's not actually 3,500 applications. It's maybe 20 applications.....from people who know someone in the group that's hiring (or an adjacent group). Number goes up if a headhunter is involved
I think the process is, in general, broken. Forgetting the sheer amount of competition, but it's the hoops you need to jump through to even get a conversation with someone that makes it broken. I think the shift to ATS Screening online, the games that recruiters play, etc. makes it much harder for qualified candidates to apply in general. And even if you have the right pull, getting flagged requires the strings to be pulled too. I think that there needs to be a way to seriously change the hiring process and improve the entire system. Whoever figures out how to improve the system will be a billionaire.
Not to mention flying out to a company if you are employed but looking elsewhere and needing days off. Then having multiple companies expecting you to do this but not getting an offer. It can be so so stressful. A lot of large companies take forever to get back to you too
If they even get back to you at all.
A lot of companies are moving to video interviews for this reason
you make a mistake in your initial presumption by starting at the wrong end.
There were only 3 positions available. The number of resumes they received is irrelevant...could have been 500, 5,000 or 50,000. For 3 jobs, they did initial interviews of 50 people, and then cut down from there...which seems totally reasonable.
The problem is that 3000 people thought they were good candidates...when in reality, most of them probably were not.
Right. I mentioned that in my other comment above, that ppl cannot expect them to make jobs just bc a bunch of ppl applied
I agree with this 100% .. but would offer another follow-on point regarding whether or not there is a "brokenness" to the hiring system.
If 3,000 people applied, and maybe 100 were strong candidates .. the problem here is that you likely have a number of people who are really good candidates as well, but might not have the exact credentials and get weeded out by the machine. To ironman32's point - there is an overemphasis on exact skills and pedigree, when really attitude makes the real difference. If you've got a basic level of intelligence, I can teach you anything. Who wants to learn?
In my own real world example, I once hired a guy who had long-tenured direct experience for the role (trading assistant). It was a disaster... he was a terrible fit for our team, and was becoming a liability. We ended up having to let him go .. fast forward a few months later, and I ended up hiring one of firm's developers to fill the role. . This guy was constantly coming by me - asking about the business, clients, systems, trading, products .. etc .. He wanted it, he was hungry. It was a low risk flyer I took on him since he already worked for the firm.. but it worked out, and now he's one of our senior guys. This guy would have never made it past an initial HR screen for the role.
So I can't say what the solution is, as it is nearly impossble to tell from any part of the hiring process what someone's inner drive looks like. But I would agree that the ease of online applications creates a flood for HR and that many good candidates, including those from non-traditional backgrounds, will fall by the wayside.
So, Its almost like someone who is directed in the correct direction (Networking) can make it farther, than the average joe. I get there are people who suck with high pedigrees, and people that are rock stars with nothing, but I think the key factor is what the focus on.
I work in VC and I am in recruitment for my firm and I always want to atleast hop on a call if the candidate took the time to send a long personalized CV and resume. The most I received is 100 not 3500 though. I know that personality matters tho 100% so I really let that dictate my choice
You’re right that attitude, willingness to learn are important. Kudos to you for reaching him. The guy Robles nowadays is that no hiring manager is willing to teach. They all want someone with the exact experience to hit the ground running in day one. What you end up with is a game of musical chairs. If the guy is willing to switch from company A to coming B, doing the same thing for a few extra thousand dollars, what will stop him from doing that again 12-18 months down the road
Tbh, many of those 3000 are probably good candidates. Let's say that 1% of those 3000 are stellar candidates - that's 30 candidates. Still ten times more candidates than needed. At one point, regular metrics cease to be predictive, as all the candidates are pretty much indistinguishable, so you need to start look at other things.
Hell, sometimes it just boils down to dumb luck for some candidates. If you have tens to hundreds of candidates that are pretty much identical, but very few spots, someone's gonna get dinged on things they can't control.
50 phone interviews seem like a lot. The only way a company can get from >1000 to 8 is to play probabilities. Therefore, anyone not from a program or company that’s proven to produce successful candidates or internally referenced should get sorted out on pure probabilities. That can often leave you with still too many candidates.
They have such high competition that for certain companies it is honestly a catch 22 for everyone
I think it's broken, mainly from the application process becoming so streamlined. You can now apply by sending in a resume and answering a few questions online, that spurs 1,000s of people applying for jobs for which they fit very little of the job description.
Also, a chicken or the egg problem exists, its extremely difficult to fire someone, and can take years as HR has to cross Ts and dot Is to avoid legal ramifications. This relates to taking more time to hire, as companies need to be sure they are hiring the "correct" person.
At the end of the day, companies (and the people who work/hire there) tend to over emphasis both their skills at identifying candidates and also the candidates ability to do the job. Most jobs now someone starting has to learn away, so its more about hiring a person with a good attitude. I don't think companies understand this point though.
Is firing someone really this hard in the U.S.? I thought that most employers have at-will employment agreements at least for entry-level positions.
Firing can be because chances are if they hire someone new and they have a high turnover in that position it gets veryyyyy expensive. My last company I worked with an actual pathological liar/bum but they would not fire her bc they were afraid of the hire turnover. Eventually she quit and screwed them over with no notice (she left as classy as she came in). Then they had to get someone else and it ended up working for the best but I have seen other departments like a revolving door of new ppl in and out
I’m not sure those numbers make a strong argument for or against the hiring process, but what I do know....
If HireVue actually uses AI to score a candidate based on their mouth/eye/whatever else movements, that’s mind blowing. There has to be some necessary evil when screening the amount of candidates large corporations need to, but I’m not sure that’s it.
I think I remember seeing a BI article or maybe WSJ where this guy ‘beat’ the hirevue by just making sounds or something. By beat I mean his video was presented to a hiring manager rather than discarded by HireVues algo.
Well I respect that opinion!! That’s why I am generally asking all for feedback. More are leaning towards the side that says it’s broken though. It’s definitely not perfect but it’s tricky to know what exactly will make a great difference
I lean on the 'broken' side, I'm just not sure what the answer is given the amount of applicants to these companies
.
It really is all about networking. Otherwise it's almost a lottery to get to a face to face. That sucks. However, in a way it's good. Networking is hard. It's a grind too. Lots of kids have to get way outside their comfort zone to achieve results. That shows how hungry they are and advances their soft skills dramatically.
If not broken, it is at the very least super flawed. E.g. why keep IB internship applications open in November when it's common knowledge that, having opened them in mid-July/ August, all spots are taken? It gives candidates so much false hope and is such a time waste..
Ofc one shouldn't apply if they're not qualified. And yeah if you're lucky you may be selected even in November. But in reality it's a black hole with no transparency
Yeah it really is. I have had a lot of friends get super bummed over that
Looking from the outside in, it is as if investment banks go out of their way to make young people feel miserable without any apparent benefit to their organization...
They just want to seem cool to get a bunch of starry eyes idealists tending hand and feet to the executives.... Half the jobs are given to senior-ed employees kids anyway tbh
Its even worse when all of the positions are filled before applications even open, yet they still open applications anyway for some reason.
Deutsche Bank rejected me three times without giving me interviews. Im 4.0 gpa student with 1y relevant exp and professional exams. Good extracurriculars too (2 sports, president of society). In total, something like 100 apps & 2 phone interviews. idk whats going on man
/rantover
Maybe it’s your resume? What’s your relaxant experience?
Not saying this is your doing at all but their must be some reason to get you in if you’re qualified
Thanks for both of your concerns.
Of course I’m a non target.
Im not worried, I’ve accepted my odds. I just wanted to make someone smile/laugh and share my experience with online applications. Thanks for your comments once again.
Are you at a target or semi target school? Also note that Deutsche Bank is in rough shape right now so it might not be you.
Your aren’t a member of a Protected Class.
all 3500 probably weren't 'qualified' and just applied anyway. different industries. different experiences etc.
How many are applying for SA at a typical BB anyway? 10 applicants per opening? 50?
Voluptatem id sit rem aut aut debitis. Quaerat et veritatis amet voluptatem non ex voluptas aperiam.
Eos qui maxime qui provident ullam. Minus sed perferendis dolore consequatur odio.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Amet et cum est. Nemo libero qui necessitatibus sunt sed temporibus voluptas dolor. Cum perferendis quis consequuntur molestias tenetur fuga asperiores tempora. Perferendis recusandae rem minus nobis sint.
Enim repellendus qui consequatur quia iusto quia. Maiores corporis veniam alias nihil. Accusantium atque quisquam et voluptate impedit aut delectus. Consequuntur optio vitae est voluptate ea perferendis ullam asperiores. Quibusdam sed quas cum.
Quisquam quo qui non eum commodi voluptatum odit dolor. Voluptatibus error eaque facere odio voluptatem. Reiciendis consequuntur sint similique aut officia maiores. Sit eum sit ab dolorum. Mollitia eum vero dolores atque sit earum ratione. Dolores ex deleniti blanditiis.
Occaecati maxime et officiis dolores mollitia id vero. Quis maiores ipsum tenetur in. Odit doloremque commodi autem accusamus ea beatae aut.