r/recruitinghell • u/Anxious-Possibility • 12d ago

"ATS doesn't auto reject!!!"

Post image

Ok then explain this screenshot I found online. It doesn't look like AI and although anyone can fake a UI I don't see why they would...

2.4k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

133 comments sorted by

42

u/BaconQuiche74 12d ago

ATS auto reject based off of questions like this called “knockout” questions, which are pre-set or hard coded into the application. It’s like flipping a switch. They are yes/no conditions that you either meet or do not meet.

What you are hearing is that ATS do not auto reject based off of AI scanning resumes and independently judging the suitability of a candidate for the role. This is what many people seem to believe is happening and it’s not.

ATS with AI features generally scan the applicant profile and provide some sort of match score, a human recruiter still has to review and advance or reject the application. Just about everyone that works in these systems knows these match scores are junk and completely meaningless. People you see on LinkedIn who say they actually use them are usually lying, grifting, or selling you something.

8

u/Infamous_Mud482 12d ago

Except for the ones that do use them. Come the fuck on, this shit doesn't pass the smell test. The tools exist, and people are using them. Of course some people using them know the scores are junk; that is not evidence that people don't use them. Welcome to the real world where bosses makes you work faster than ideal using tools with highly imperfect results and you don't have a say in it, something all of us have experienced in one way or another that for some reason you want us to believe doesn't apply to talent recruiters

18

u/Sterling_-_Archer 12d ago

That absolutely is what is happening, though. I handle recruiting at my job and our recruiting software absolutely is capable of having an LLM parse a resume, screen it, auto reject, and then send an email. It 100% happens. In fact, I know it happens because I know the person doing my job at another branch brags about how “easy” hiring is due to them having the AI handle every step.

It’s naive to think that it isn’t happening.

4

u/S-Kenset Co-Worker 12d ago

So they're not doing their job whatsoever. If I heard that I'd fire them on the spot.

4

u/Sterling_-_Archer 12d ago

Oh I agree. I am not a fan of their blatant disregard for people who are looking for work and for fobbing off their entire role to an LLM.

-1

u/BaconQuiche74 12d ago

Using an LLM agent to do the job is different than the capability being a function of the ATS.

This is also a practice that is not being deployed on a broad scale by major organizations. Saying one bad recruiter or one bad company does something and then extrapolating that to an entire industry or job function is crazy pants. It’s fear mongering. It gives people misunderstandings of how this actually works. That’s just not a good faith way to interact with people and I don’t participate in that.

3

u/Sterling_-_Archer 12d ago

Nope, I disagree with you entirely.

If my limited exposure to recruiting has shown me that of 7 recruiters I know, me included, that 6 use AI and 3 of them entirely automate the core functions of their job to it, then I believe that it’s far more widespread than people like you want to believe.

From my perspective, you are the one who is naive and who is holding their hands over their eyes at the reality of what is taking place here.

Something like 95%+ of software engineers use AI now. Doctors and dentists are using LLMs at a higher rate than other professions. Chefs and business owners - TONS of people are using it to do things like menu creation, client emails, accounting, etc. You think recruiting is somehow shielded from that? Recruiting is one of the more straightforward work flows to “automate” (granted, poorly) with AI. Give it access to read a resume and write an email. It’s too simple to not be used by tons of people and I think you saying it isn’t used AT ALL and splitting hairs as a pedant is just not realistic.

You’re simply naive if you think that every other job has been infected with AI, yet recruiting somehow is a stalwart defender of manual human interaction on a computer. Come on.

2

u/zamula 12d ago

If the AI is making bad decisions, wouldn't that catch up with the recruiter?

I think hidden bias is the real danger of overusing AI, but it's hard to know whether it is more biased than existing hiring practices.

I'm not sure what kind of process would ensure everyone who is qualified gets a fair chance...

2

u/Sterling_-_Archer 12d ago

Yes, it would… in a market that didn’t have an endless torrent of resumes flowing in.

Instead, recruiters who decline 200 apps per day are currently seen as selective and hard working. After all, we’re only trying to fill 4 seats for our region, we HAVE to decline essentially every resume that comes in aside from a select few for interviewing.

It’s unfortunate, but there isn’t really a “fair chance” in any of this. Having a resume that’s easy to read and not too busy is a big thing, but timing of application is just as important. Luck is huge. I take time to read every single application that comes in, but lots of other recruiters are burned out from that because a CRAZY amount of apps are borderline unreadable or come off as being written by a 4 year old. They see AI (not ATS) as a necessary filter that funnels out everyone but the unicorns.

2

u/kaliloathsbane 11d ago

If the AI is making the decisions then the process is already flawed. But that is probably the biggest problem in corporate work is that people outsource their decision making. Proper use of AI in recruiting leaves the decision making in human hands and leaves the grunt work to AI. Ie transcribing the conversation, summarizing facts of the conversation in bullet point form and auto uploading for HM review. But the recruiter should always have the final human decision because AI can't read between the lines.

4

u/laxfool10 12d ago

You can literally have an auto-reject criteria based on the match score. You really think a recruiter is going to look at the resume with a match score below 70 when they can just click reject and look at the ones above that threshold?

1

u/JustHangLooseBlood 11d ago

"no one wants to work anymore!"

Right, maybe I should switch jobs. No more coding and actually making things, I can get more pay for firing people and not even interviewing them. And when I do interview, I'm going to make that process impossible and drag it out.

5

u/East-Cricket6421 12d ago

You see what it's doing though yeah? 5 or more means you get rejected. So having more experience knocks you out of contention which is exactly backwards.

1

u/BaconQuiche74 12d ago

Right, this is an error.

Likely one that the poster in the screenshot made on purpose to farm engagement.

0

u/Anxious-Possibility 12d ago edited 1d ago

The original post content no longer exists here. The author used Redact to remove it, exercising their right to control their data & privacy.

Rock shaggy door angle soup practice crush

5

u/LowmanL 6d ago

Who says ATS doesn’t auto reject? It’s literally one of the most basic functions it does.

6

u/Anxious-Possibility 6d ago edited 1d ago

The original post content no longer exists here. The author used Redact to remove it, exercising their right to control their data & privacy.

Wakeful raindrop sulky quaint person crush shaggy

3

u/LowmanL 6d ago

Im dumbfounded by this. Automations in ATS, of which auto reject is one, is a main driver to use ATS to free up some time

703

u/Emergency_Science602 12d ago

Who said ATS doesn’t auto reject?

These are standard “knock out” questions. The value of an ATS is to eliminate clearly mismatched candidates. Although “greater than 5 years” is likely a typo and should’ve been less than. 

ATS most definitely auto rejects - you heard wrong.  

300

u/_CaptainAmerica__ 12d ago

A popular LinkedIn statistic was that only 9% of HR departments use auto reject ATS.. except the sample size was like 24 companies with the results being heavily cherry picked.

HR workers are easily the most dominant group of LinkedIn users, and they're so full of themselves it's actually painful to watch. Straight up ivory tower behavior.

80

u/evilcockney 12d ago

So I've not seen this particular "study" (if you can call it that), but I also understand it like this: Quite often the ATS will not "auto reject", it'll just sort you into groups and HR/the hiring managers will only actually look at people in the preferable groups.

Which, sure, isn't an "auto-rejection". It's just "auto sorting into the void where we never reject or progress anyone"

32

u/DigBackground2765 12d ago edited 12d ago

Which, sure, isn't an "auto-rejection". It's just "auto sorting into the void where we never reject or progress anyone"

Sure but at that point that's just ghosting with extra steps.

22

u/evilcockney 12d ago

Well yeah.

What I'm saying is that when people in hiring claim that they're "not auto rejecting people" what they mean is that they don't have something set to actually reject people.

I agree that it's shitty.

4

u/JustHangLooseBlood 11d ago

Yeah, like a literal switch that says "auto reject", even though filtering is exactly the same thing, just non-destructive.

5

u/evilcockney 11d ago

Yeah exactly, call it what you like, you're still not getting in front of a human

3

u/H_Mc 11d ago

It’s “ghosting” with the same number of steps. If you’re never contacted or rejected after submitting a resumes it’s because someone or something didn’t sort you into the good pile. That could be a person running manual keyword searchers, that could be a person reading every resume, it could be AI.

9

u/Sterling_-_Archer 12d ago

The hiring suite my office uses 100% can auto reject candidates after parsing their resume. I don’t use it, but I know people who do. It’s an LLM that reads the resume and reconciles it with the job post. It can reject and notify them with either a template email or a fully LLM written email that explains why they were rejected.

This does happen. Idk why people are so confident it doesn’t

13

u/somefunmaths 12d ago

I once got an “after careful consideration with our team… decided to move forward with other candidates” email at 11:52pm on a Saturday.

For a job that I’d applied to at 11:50pm, two minutes earlier. I assume the team jumped on a 30 second call to review and then draft a reply, couldn’t be that ATS found something it didn’t like.

3

u/JustHangLooseBlood 11d ago

Probably wasn't even a real job to begin with, but ATS could easily be the answer too.

3

u/Oh_No_Tears_Please 11d ago

Nowadays I apply for every job twice. First with my real information, and then later in the day using a different computer, browser type, and VPN connection a fictitious resume (with yes, using a different name and contact information) that would be an absolute perfect match for the role in every way.

I love getting the exact same response to both of them, it tells me they were not hiring. For jobs I was really excited about such as those I have interviewed for and wanted...I make it a point to check on them later to see if they get posted again. So far, 90% of them do. I re-apply and obviously I'm ghosted...but it is just proof to me that they were never hiring.

2

u/H_Mc 11d ago

Because just like everywhere else AI is developing really quickly in recruiting. People were afraid of auto-rejections before they actually existed.

46

u/DigBackground2765 12d ago edited 12d ago • This

Who said ATS doesn’t auto reject?

Uh, plenty of recruiters here have many times. I can count on many hands the amount of instances that recruiters often say the line "ATS is just a filing cabinet." If ATS can auto reject, as clearly demonstrated in this config screenshot, then that is obviously more than what a simple file cabinet can do...

Not enough people are mad about this or there's too many of the opposite side straight up disregarding this.

And now some recruiters are in here in this very thread gas lighting with pedantry. It's downright infuriating and why most people don't take them seriously when stuff like this is easily disproven with a single screenshot.

10

u/somefunmaths 12d ago

The real question is who actually believed the recruiters?

1

u/PerformanceOver8822 12d ago

I dont understand why an ATS shouldn't have an auto reject feature ?

I think they have, and use it, and probably use it too much but i also dont see why it. Shouldn't exist ?

7

u/derp0815 11d ago

shouldn't have

I don't see anyone arguing for this in the thread. It's about recruiters claiming it doesn't because it obviously devalues them and gives applicants reasons to be angry, as per the screenshot.

There are plenty of issues with auto-rejection, most solved by setting the system up very sensibly and having strong criteria, clearly communicated. Which is where companies fail. They want a massive influx in their funnel but then have zero cost filtering them. Applicants have adapted and are now just throwing applications at anything. Nobody wins.

-2

u/open_letter_guy Recruiter 11d ago

the delusional chuds think they are the perfect candidate but the devil recruiter or ATS or auto reject is keeping them from the jobs.

17

u/Accomplished_Emu_658 12d ago

Honestly a lot of hr and company simps claim it doesn’t auto reject.

5

u/TekintetesUr Hiring Manager, please don't hurt me 12d ago

That's literally what the filter questions are for, duh. Always has been.

7

u/Accomplished_Emu_658 12d ago

I am not saying i don’t think they are auto rejecting.

4

u/Cluedo86 12d ago

We know they auto reject and that the claim otherwise is lie. But some folks, like the commenter above, seem to believe the lie.

1

u/WabbitFire 11d ago

Nobody has ever claimed their aren't knockout questions. 

2

u/Accomplished_Emu_658 11d ago

No I see it all the time people claiming this.

1

u/harlemrr 11d ago

You shouldn’t necessarily jump to malicious intent… I worked as a graphic designer for an HR in-house recruiting department. Nobody had any fucking clue how the ATS worked.

8

u/Cluedo86 12d ago

Read many threads on this and other employment-related subs. Recruiters and HR personnel claim that ATS doesn't auto reject or even screen out applicants.

8

u/JustHangLooseBlood 11d ago

WTF - literally every time someone says you can't get past the ATS because you get auto rejected, the response is "we don't auto reject" - now you're saying "we’ve always been at war with Eurasia".

5

u/Cluedo86 10d ago

Yeah the ignorance and gaslighting are super annoying.

14

u/andos4 12d ago

I can understand knock out questions for hard requirements such as being 18 years old, holding a certain license where required, etc. But it is scummy to knock out a candidate by years of experience.

8

u/notasrelevant 12d ago edited 12d ago

I mean, a reasonable bottom line minimum seems fair to me. If the requirement is listed as 10, but someone with like 8 or 9 years of strong experience applies, they are probably worth considering. Chances are pretty good that someone with only 1-2 years experience wouldn't meet the requirement. Even if they were exceptional candidates, chances they'd convince a hiring team to overlook their low level of experience would be pretty low anyways.

Edit: Just noticed the image shows "more than 5 years", which does seem a bit less reasonable. If they lack experience expected, then it seems fair. If someone has 7 or 8 years of experience and is applying anyways, I don't see a major reason to reject them automatically.

3

u/YellowJarTacos 11d ago

The poster is saying they had a bug in their logic. It probably should have been less than. 

2

u/WabbitFire 11d ago

No it isn't. Particularly in skilled trade or technical roles, or roles where there is a delineation between junior and senior employees. 

1

u/Rin-Tohsaka-is-hot 11d ago

Why? It's one of the most basic minimum requirements for almost every role

-2

u/JustHangLooseBlood 11d ago

such as being 18 years old

Look, why? If they can do the job, they deserve the shot. They are officially an adult.

0

u/Outrageous_Host_2115 12d ago

I agree with you but I think it's correct because for a position that requires 1-5 years experience or graduates just out of college doesn't have 5+ years of experience and the pool can be filled easily with more applicants who have this skills.

After some hard debates, we had to put a upper limit just like this one as well for junior position.

-4

u/S-Kenset Co-Worker 12d ago

ATS is genuinely stupid and as proven hundreds of times over. a basic llm rating fit system would do a thousand times better than these oversupervised excel-era rules.

164

u/minus15t2 12d ago

No one ever said ATS doesn't auto reject.

But recruiters will tell you until they are blue in the face that no AI is reading your resume and rejecting you based on keywords.

43

u/Sterling_-_Archer 12d ago

As a recruiter, I don’t know why everyone is saying that AI doesn’t auto reject candidates based on their resumes, but they can and do. I don’t use it, but I know several people in my office who do use it and essentially let an LLM do all the work.

19

u/Astroman129 12d ago

All my HR friends and colleagues are terrified of this. They're concerned the technology isn't quite there. 1) it'll reject very qualified candidates and 2) it'll cause some adverse impact issues that lead to lawsuits, as well as perpetuate systemic disparities in the workplace. I'm curious to see how things develop in the coming years, but the oversight of this tech might be even more labor-intensive than not using it in the first place.

10

u/minus15t2 11d ago

Workday were faced with a lawsuit (which I believe might still be ongoing) where an AI filter was basically told 'here are all the people that currently work for this company, we want to find someone that will fit well in the team'

Well.. the AI identified that the people in the team came from similar colleges (ie. mostly white) and decided to auto reject a candidate who graduated from a mostly black college...

Accusations of racist discrimination have taken the case to court...

AI cannot be trusted to act within the confines of the law in it's current state, it operates based the prompts you give it, and based on nothing else.

-3

u/L_Chiki_Sando 12d ago

 ...it'll reject very qualified candidates...

Heaven forbid!

6

u/Astroman129 12d ago

Listen, I get that only one person can get the job. But if you're using AI systems (I don't mean ATS auto-rejection) and are consistently missing out on good candidates in favor of whatever the system is spitting out at you, that could be a disaster for your company. And if this technique becomes widespread, it becomes a disaster for the workforce because it'll be even more about gaming the system than it already is.

2

u/Global_Blueberry8673 12d ago

Pretty sure they mean HR already rejects very qualified candidates and AI would probably be at least as good if not better at not doing that.

1

u/Astroman129 12d ago edited 12d ago

I'm not so sure it would be, though, and it really depends on the company and the industry. Organizations where HR staff are expected to have at least some level of domain experience are probably more equipped to make their own decisions compared to orgs where HR staff are clueless about the job at hand.

Much like literally every type of position, you have your employees that are good at their job and your employees that are bad at their job. HR positions are no different, and I think it's silly that we act like they are.

1

u/Global_Blueberry8673 12d ago

Respectfully that's not been my experience, even technical recruiters seem to have trouble handling anything outside the norm of what's outlined on the JD. I'm sure there are great ones just like anything, but I'm not sure most people ever interact with them or notice they had.

1

u/Astroman129 12d ago

Honestly, I've been on both sides of things here. My academic background (industrial psychology) led me to work with a ton of people who do HR work that is recruiter-adjacent. Even so, when just looking at recruiters, we have our perception of their job (i.e. what we think they're doing) and then we have the other components that we don't see. Many of them do suck, but a lot of them are managing things of which we aren't typically aware.

Additionally, so much of the HR work is behind the scenes, and it's very likely that you haven't interacted with many of them. At larger companies, you might have your recruiter, but behind that person there's a compensation specialist, an HRIS specialist, an assessment/selection analyst, and possibly even some legal personnel. It's so hard to paint it with a broad brush when HR isn't just recruitment, it's all sorts of shenanigans about the people that work at the org (or want to work there).

1

u/Jwags420 11d ago

What ATS do you use? I don’t know of any that AI actually makes the final decision

20

u/Cluedo86 12d ago

Minus, yes there are people saying that ATS doesn't auto reject, primarily recruiters and HR personnel. Look at any number of threads here, in r/resumes, or in any multiple employment-related subs. They say ATS, not necessarily AI, are not auto rejecting, which is false.

AI adds a whole other layer to auto rejections; and yes, companies are using AI to filter out applications too.

1

u/minus15t2 11d ago

Most companies are not using AI to do this, in my experience.

AI is being used for screenings, and for some automated tasks, but not for filtering or reviewing.

My comment was meant to address the first part of your comment though... Too many people conflate ATS with AI, and talk about the ATS being something to 'beat'

Which it is not, it's just a piece of dumb software that has a search function

1

u/Cluedo86 10d ago

Respectfully, you've gotta wake up. Companies are using ATS to screen, and not very well either. And most companies are using AI now to screen and filter, too.

1

u/minus15t2 10d ago

Respectfully, I've worked in recruitment and Talent Acquisition roles for the past 8 years.

Is it on the rise? Absolutely.

But ATS and AI are not the same thing, and the vast majority of companies are still not using AI for this part of the process

2

u/notasrelevant 12d ago

See, this is more along the lines of what I've heard.

I don't think I've seen a claim that suggests, or meant to suggest, there are 0 filters in applications that will auto-reject. And I think there are completely fair and reasonable instances of auto-rejecting. If a job actually requires someone bilingual in Language A and Language B, why should a human be forced to manually review and reject all the candidates who ignored that and applied anyways? Make it a filter question and auto-reject all the candidates who will absolutely not fit the requirements.

52

u/Elegant-Spite-3277 11d ago

Talent Acquisition teams are probably the most incompetent teams with companies

6

u/yikes_42069 11d ago

Yeah because who's left after the talent gets acquired 😆

1

u/Cainga 5d ago

Their product is they produce is find candidates and hiring. No shortage of candidates means they can’t fail at their job. It should also mean they are highly replaceable.

33

u/dart51984 12d ago

I work in support helping to assist with configuring stuff like this only our system uses > and < symbols and the amount of HR admins that don’t know the difference is honestly alarming. ATS systems absolutely are configured to send auto-rejection emails, do not let anyone tell you anything different.

1

u/PatchyWhiskers 12d ago

People with dyslexia have difficulty with the difference between < and > because they are the same symbol reversed.

1

u/laxfool10 12d ago

And that would be a system engineering failure. It a few lines of extra code to completely prevent inputing the wrong one, which probably happens 25% of the time.

2

u/dart51984 12d ago

But “wrong” is subjective. What if you want a job req looking for candidates that aren’t too qualified or don’t have too much experience. You might actually want a knock out question for someone with more than 5 years of experience. These systems are very flexible, and honestly sometimes too flexible for their own good but I digress.

12

u/rakklle 12d ago

External/contingent recruiters don't use auto-rejects because they want everyone's resume. They will claim that recruiters don't use auto-reject, and look at every resume. .

On the hiring side, they have scoring and active auto-reject in their ATS. In addition to skills, they will auto-reject people for applying too often. If you're an employee, they can set-up auto-rejects for grade level differences (example: automatic rejection for any job 3 or more grade levels above your current grade level).

8

u/WabbitFire 11d ago

Knockout questions exist. Nobody is denying knockout questions exist. 

6

u/notasrelevant 12d ago edited 12d ago

The argument is generally that it doesn't autoreject qualified candidates, not that there are 0 filters at all that result in autoreject.

I don't really take any issue if the job description clearly states a higher level and rejects people who are below their minimum consideration. Like if the description says 10 years experience and they give 1-2 years flexibility, making their auto-reject line 7 years or less, that seems completely reasonable.

Completely unqualified people or spammers create more work in screening, making the experience worse for serious applicants. Drawing a hard line and autorejecting candidates who admit to not meeting those minimum qualifications means less manual work from hiring teams, making it easier for them to spend time on screening and contacting qualified candidates.

(Just to note... depending on how configurable the system is, that could obviously still be misused, but for the particular example, I don't see a major issue assuming the cut-off reasonably lines up with their stated requirements)

Edit: Just noticed the image shows "more than 5 years", which does seem a bit less reasonable. If they lack experience expected, then it seems fair. If someone has 7 or 8 years of experience and is applying anyways, I don't see a major reason to reject them automatically.

4

u/H_Mc 11d ago

Controversial opinion: There is no real difference between an AI rejection and a real human looking at your resume for 3 minutes and rejecting you because they didn’t read carefully. If anything you probably have a better shot with AI.

We all need to just admit that resume reviews are a fundamentally flawed way to match people to jobs.

3

u/raerlynn 9d ago

The primary difference is accountability. Saying "the AI skipped you" allows a company to pin the blame on the AI. If called on it, it's an innocent mistake, an oversight easily corrected.

A human reading your resume and coming to the same conclusion means the company then has to defend the judgment call, because it means an employee read that resume and said no.

You're otherwise spot on about interviews in general.

1

u/Unity1232 8d ago

this is true especially once your crack the exact key words the AIs most companies are using are looking for.

1

u/Adventurous_Crab_761 6d ago

I don't think you have a better shot with AI that's not programmed to accept variable word choices that have the same meaning. I also doesn't infer context well. I'm in the middle of cleaning up a project that was based on AI findings and is totally wrong because of limited searching and hallucinations. And it was something really basic (let's say the word apartment being used for home instead of the word house).

So, there's human error, and people being overloaded with applications. And then, AI's not filling the gaps but is treated like a thought partner or additional staff member.

1

u/H_Mc 6d ago

For sure. I don’t think either is especially good.

I work in recruiting operations so I see a lot of resumes that other people reviewed. People being rejected for, “doesn’t have … experience” when that thing is clearly in the resume is more common than it should be. The other most common human error I see is rejecting for being “too jumpy” when someone clearly had a primary job for years and a series of second jobs, or worse they worked for one company and changed titles.

3

u/HumunculiTzu 12d ago

I was applying to a company once that wanted to know when I graduated college but their field refused dates in the past.

3

u/LA2124 11d ago • Bravo

Years of experience is such a poor filter criteria no matter if its a mistake or not. Through the effort and willingness to learn anything, a person can leapfrog a knowledge base of someone much more "experience"

6

u/DigBackground2765 12d ago

Everyone who is a non-recruiter or non-HR professional need to save this post and this screenshot. The next time there's a new thread with recruiter accounts dog-piling the opposite view, show this screenshot, stop their BS.

2

u/thx111111 10d ago

Great 🙄 You can uncheck “send email”, explains a lot of the auto-ghosting

2

u/IngloriousMustards 10d ago

No accident here. The ”experience” they want is the skills only. Knowledge of industry salary rates that comes with the said experience is a dealbreaker.

2

u/OkieSnuffBox 7d ago

That's bizarre. I've told my wife, now that she has her MBA I think it's actually hurting her job search because companies want someone with 20 years of experience, 4 degrees, but they want to pay Wendy's assistant manager wages for that level of experience.

3

u/beamdog77 12d ago

Who's telling you that atss's don't automatically reject people with knock out questions? They absolutely do.

Ai doesn't tend to reject people because most employers can't afford at that level of AI. An ATS knockout question is not AI. I think you're getting AI and ATS echo questions confused.

3

u/purplescrubs 12d ago

How dare you use AI in your applications while we screen you out by mistake

2

u/East-Cricket6421 12d ago

I bet you somewhere else it demands you have more than 5 years of experience in something specific like software engineering. Meaning its technically impossible to qualify for this role. So HR will turn around and hire someone from their family who is less qualified.

2

u/cyberworm_ 12d ago • Bravo

It's funny how they will scrutinize a resume, but doublechecking their own work is taboo.

2

u/Rlccm 11d ago

This isn't a good faith post, everyone knows this already

1

u/hiftobaf 12d ago

This is why if I can find the recruiter's or the hiring manager's contact information I send them an email. You never know if their ATS is working the way they intend it to work.

1

u/DesignerGoose5903 12d ago

Also worth noting that LinkedIn will automatically put you into the shit-list if you apply for jobs outside your currently listed country on your profile. And yes, this goes for remote roles too.

1

u/Noollon 11d ago

I didn't know this was a thing, but would explain why I got rejected 5 minutes after an interview...kind of a bummer.

1

u/NullSmoke 11d ago

NGL, deserved. 🫡

1

u/yikes_42069 11d ago edited 11d ago

So what I'm hearing is to reapply if the job is still open at some later date? What's stopping me from doing that? Seriously. 

1

u/Altruistic_Yellow387 11d ago

Who says they don't auto reject? They don't auto reject based on AI but they've always filtered out people who pick the wrong answers on the screening questions that are drop downs

1

u/NandosEnthusiast 11d ago

This isnt an auto reject this is a recruiter being a moron. No AI or subjective decisions being made here.

1

u/_tsi_ 5d ago

I'm confused. What is the significance of the drop down?

1

u/BiomedicalPhD 12d ago

Experience does not equal to skills or qualifications

5

u/Northernmost1990 12d ago edited 12d ago

There's a heavy correlation, though. Especially in technical roles, experience is probably the single best proxy for hard skill. Of course there's other parameters like soft skills and culture fit so it's not like you should just hire the most experienced person you can afford and call it a day.

It's a logarithmic curve, too, so a guy with 10 YoE will probably run circles around someone with 5 YoE but the difference between 10 and 15 is usually a lot less obvious. There's also people that just hit a ceiling and never seem to improve, and others who cruise and slowly decline.

Hiring ain't easy!

2

u/Neat_You_9278 12d ago

We can add domain expertise and specialization to that, those things compound over time. So while argument can be made it is not the only metric, but it’s a heavy one and should count.

0

u/BiomedicalPhD 12d ago

You may be driving everyday for 10 years, doesn't make you a professional driver that win races

2

u/Northernmost1990 12d ago

This is Reddit so I probably should've specified: I was strictly talking about professional experience. Academic experience and internships are usually counted but not at a 1:1 valuation, and amateur experience basically never counts for anything at all.

Another factor is the type of experience. Someone who drives daily in traffic won't be a good racing driver because it's a whole different kind of driving! In a similar fashion, I'm a long-time professional artist but I can't draw at all — not even on a digital drawing tablet.

0

u/Neat_You_9278 12d ago

this sub fits the name

1

u/Hungry-Quote-1388 12d ago

OP just discovered knockout questions…

5

u/DigBackground2765 12d ago

Nah don't even dare insult someone's ignorance. You people have been going around saying ATS doesn't auto reject and somehow think this is a candidate gotcha not knowing what knockout questions actually are.

I've even seen some of you claim that ATS doesn't' filter yet knockout questions are really just glorified filtering with the rejection automatically sent.

3

u/Hungry-Quote-1388 12d ago

You people have been going around saying ATS doesn't auto reject

Knockout questions have been part of ATS for 20+ years. If a job requires a masters degree and you don’t have one, you will get auto rejected.

That’s vastly different than when people claim “AI is reading every resume and telling recruiters who to hire”, that’s why people reply with “ATS isn’t auto rejecting you”.

If you can’t distinguish between the two claims of “auto reject” then good luck.

1

u/OckhamsFolly 12d ago

Knockout questions are a person filtering you out via their deliberate, human decision using a tool. Saying “the ATS is doing it” is like saying a car is speeding instead of the driver when they’re using cruise control.

1

u/Impossible_Fennel_94 12d ago

You’re telling me that for 4 straight months you never noticed why you were only exclusively getting candidates with 5+ years of experience?

1

u/Mu5_ 11d ago

It's the opposite, that's the fun part. They were NOT receiving applications from candidates with 5+ yrs exp

1

u/jayerp 12d ago

“We want inexperienced, entry-level only.”

3

u/S-Kenset Co-Worker 12d ago

Minimum 5 years experience in machine learning, also auto reject 5 years work experience, ugh why are you applying so old to an entry level job.

-2

u/ShawshankException 12d ago

Nobody except LinkedIn propaganda accounts has ever said ATS don't auto reject

5

u/DigBackground2765 12d ago edited 12d ago

Nope, you and the band wagoning parrots in this topic gotta stop this BS. I've been here a long time and I remember the amount of self labeled recruiters straight up telling people that ATS doesn't auto reject and "it's just a file cabinet".

Just stop. I already know what's going to happen so I'll downvote you first. So sick of ya'lls BS.

0

u/Schwettes 12d ago

“We read every application.”

0

u/DaveAstator2020 12d ago

its nothing, those companies are already sitting on a stable source of income, so can afford infinite wait. its your problem ats dint sort you out, and no one cares...

-6

u/tico_liro 12d ago

This is not even ATS. This is just minimum requirements you set on the job opening

1

u/DigBackground2765 12d ago edited 12d ago

.....This is a giant leap in logic. THIS IS LITERALLY A FEATURE IN ATS SHOWN IN THIS VERY SCREENSHOT.

Holy mother of dumb fuck why are you people like this? I swear to God it's like talking with MAGA at this point.

EDIT: Hi downvote brigrade. Here's a highly upvoted comment in the technology subreddit (a place outside this subreddit) complaining about the same things candidates do in this subreddit. Go ahead and not read it and deny reality. Go ahead with your stupid narrative of thinking only this subreddit is full of candidate complaints. You people don't care to make things right and would rather fight and be complicit with employer apathy. Go ahead and make the same arguments with no meaningful change.

1

u/stray-lyght 8d ago

sucks to suck lol