My company sometimes uses that too. It has your general keyword filtering on resumes, with sensitivity adjustments.
It also has a tool to ask questions, then candidates video record themselves responding (as many retakes as they want) and the hiring manager can review their video so they aren’t bound by a mutual schedule. No AI element to that (yet) that I’m aware of, but could see the potential to screen the videos through an AI filter.
I don’t like the video screening, personally. Neither as an applicant nor as a hiring manager. I’ve only had to use it once as hiring manager where the narrowed down by resume pool of candidates was still 70 people for only one position. I used the damn tool because I didn’t see any other way to filter it down to a number I could conceivably interview live on zoom.
If one is down to 3-5 candidates, AI tools of any sort are inappropriate. As with all things AI, it’s a tool and not an excuse to not do the job.
I didn’t see any other way to filter it down to a number I could conceivably interview live on zoom.
You can get help from other people. If you’re so cool you have 70 relevant resumes for one position, you can afford 70 human-hours, internally or even externally.
Lol, you don’t know how middle management works, do you. I have been “empowered to find ways to be more efficient” so unfortunately that means no budget for extra resources, use the AI tools that some Jr c-suite asshole pushed to justify his latest promotion.
I did choose to set filters on resumes loosely at the expense of having a larger pool for the video portion. I could have tightened the resume filters, but for this particular job, I decided verbal communication explaining how they used x tool mattered more than how well one copy/pasted keywords from the job posting into the resume. I would probably set filters differently for a different type of job.
I also don’t think it’s “cool” to have a down selected pool of 70. I think it’s a sign the job market is fucked up and getting worse. The job itself is fine; it has one good benefit of paying for just about any advanced degree that can be stretched to sound “job relevant”, but other than that it’s mid.
I did not have as many times as I wanted. I had one chance per question, no re takes. What’s fucking hilarious is my reference was more important than the fucking screener. I got fired by a company for budget concerns supposedly but not on bad terms and this company contracts with them and apparently the hiring manager called my former engineering manager and I got a good word so to the top I went. Fucking hate the stain of AI.
That’s garbage. That’s def an option someone selected, to not allow re-takes. Hopefully they just didn’t understand the impact and course-correct if they use it again.
Knowing the workflow for mine was unlimited retakes made me feel a bit better, though I still didn’t like the tool. So the person who chose to record from the phone with their camera shooting up their nose had every opportunity to rethink that choice. The person who opened and closed with a string of expletives chose to hit "submit’.
My company sometimes uses that too. It has your general keyword filtering on resumes, with sensitivity adjustments.
It also has a tool to ask questions, then candidates video record themselves responding (as many retakes as they want) and the hiring manager can review their video so they aren’t bound by a mutual schedule. No AI element to that (yet) that I’m aware of, but could see the potential to screen the videos through an AI filter.
I don’t like the video screening, personally. Neither as an applicant nor as a hiring manager. I’ve only had to use it once as hiring manager where the narrowed down by resume pool of candidates was still 70 people for only one position. I used the damn tool because I didn’t see any other way to filter it down to a number I could conceivably interview live on zoom.
If one is down to 3-5 candidates, AI tools of any sort are inappropriate. As with all things AI, it’s a tool and not an excuse to not do the job.
You can get help from other people. If you’re so cool you have 70 relevant resumes for one position, you can afford 70 human-hours, internally or even externally.
Lol, you don’t know how middle management works, do you. I have been “empowered to find ways to be more efficient” so unfortunately that means no budget for extra resources, use the AI tools that some Jr c-suite asshole pushed to justify his latest promotion.
I did choose to set filters on resumes loosely at the expense of having a larger pool for the video portion. I could have tightened the resume filters, but for this particular job, I decided verbal communication explaining how they used x tool mattered more than how well one copy/pasted keywords from the job posting into the resume. I would probably set filters differently for a different type of job.
I also don’t think it’s “cool” to have a down selected pool of 70. I think it’s a sign the job market is fucked up and getting worse. The job itself is fine; it has one good benefit of paying for just about any advanced degree that can be stretched to sound “job relevant”, but other than that it’s mid.
I mean, you’re describing poorly run company. It’s unfortunately all to common, but it’s also isn’t something good or even standard.
I did not have as many times as I wanted. I had one chance per question, no re takes. What’s fucking hilarious is my reference was more important than the fucking screener. I got fired by a company for budget concerns supposedly but not on bad terms and this company contracts with them and apparently the hiring manager called my former engineering manager and I got a good word so to the top I went. Fucking hate the stain of AI.
That’s garbage. That’s def an option someone selected, to not allow re-takes. Hopefully they just didn’t understand the impact and course-correct if they use it again.
Knowing the workflow for mine was unlimited retakes made me feel a bit better, though I still didn’t like the tool. So the person who chose to record from the phone with their camera shooting up their nose had every opportunity to rethink that choice. The person who opened and closed with a string of expletives chose to hit "submit’.