Would not be surprising if connections or nepotism became more predominant than it already is.
6 Likes
I don’t like to speak for someone else’s writing, but I don’t think Annie Lowrey literally means walk into offices with a paper cover letter. I think her point is symbolic meaning to do something unmistakably human that cuts through the AI sameness of all the other job candidates.
4 Likes
The best referrals you can get are your peers who just got a job at a company, or those that are at most 3-4 years into the company. Because they are ones who can credibly vouch for you, having taken classes with you, or been in projects with you. Not family friends, but those you have been at school with.
4 Likes
I think it’s a mixed bag.
Some companies are continuing their commitment to DEI (but not calling it that, of course) and have found that referrals just perpetuate whatever is already baked into the culture. So ask a couple of LAX Bros (just to be crude) to refer anyone they know who might be interested in the company– don’t be surprised when you end up with MORE LAX bros, not fewer. And if your favorite source schools have historically been Duke, BC, and Vanderbilt, don’t be surprised when you aren’t seeing strong candidates from Spelman or BYU if you’ve become dependent on referrals.
Others recognize that referrals are not the be-all and end-all. In selective cases they can work– but making sure that the person doing the referral is willing to put their name on a piece of paper (that eliminates the “friend of a friend” referrals) AND fills out a brief form outlining “here’s why this person is qualified for the role” (which eliminates the “he’s my idiot cousin and my uncle told me I had to help him find a job”).
But when recruiting budgets get cut, sometimes the quickest path forward is via referrals. Mixed bag for sure.
I will say on the nepotism issue- nobody wants to lose their job recommending someone who is not qualified, has poor work habits, interpersonal disaster. That doesn’t eliminate nepotism, but companies that have anti-nepotism policies are pretty strict about routing it out when it does happen.
3 Likes
I agree, but that makes it so incredibly opaque as to be useless.
In most cases, you will know precisely nobody at an organization you’re applying to, and you won’t be able to tell from the org chart, if one is even available, who to send your inquiry to without it being bozo-bounced.
Sorry meant to do a more general reply, not to you specifically
Look I’m all for personalizing your cover letter to be human and more reflective of you but if you send me the resume instead of sending it to the generic email in the ad (which has happened, it’s not too hard to figure out) I’m going to assume you don’t know how to follow directions or think that those directions don’t apply to you. It won’t get you bounced immediately like showing up in person but it’s not going to reflect well and I’m just going to forward it on to HR with s snarky comment on how you can’t follow directions. I won’t read it until it’s forwarded back from HR after you meet the requirements (note we do not winnow by AI or anything, I see anyone who meets basic requirements). I specifically insist on the words “no calls” in any job postings for my program, and if anyone called me I would consider that a red flag similar to shoring up in person. An email to follow up after an interview is fine. A thank you email is a plus. But not before you get an interview. On the other hand I love recommendations. Even from someone who doesn’t know the candidate well. It’s not going to get you the job, but it will likely get you an interview unless you’re really unqualified.
2 Likes
I obviously chose the wrong sentences to characterize the article I posted. The article points out that companies are struggling to discern what are the real skills and expertise of the applicant from what is AI generated and written to get past companies AI screens. The term fraudulent is used. Let me try again (from the article):
“Now everyone looks better and everyone looks the same and everyone parrots important key words and everyone uses punchy action verbs. Hiring managers are straining to “distinguish underlying expertise,” and to separate precious signal from cacophonous chatbot noise.” ….
“The result is that AI is slowing HR down instead of speeding it up, because companies have to spend more time scrutinizing applications and performing background checks. A number of large firms are making face-to-face interactions a bigger part of the hiring process again. Google is ensuring that candidates have “at least one round” of in-person interviews, to “make sure the fundamentals are there,” Sundar Pichai, its CEO, has said. Cisco is increasing “verification steps and enhanced background checks that may involve an in-person component.” Companies are also extending probationary periods and hiring people on contract, with the intention of turning them into full-time employees after managers can vet their work.”
Excerpt From
“AI Has Ruined the Job Market”
Annie Lowrey
The Atlantic
My takeaway from the article, if I were advising a job seeker, would be for them to write their own material. It might not be as perfected as an applicant using AI, but it will read as more genuine and hopefully gain some credibility and trust points, and if they do it well, set them apart.
This article spoke to me because I volunteer to evaluate scholarship applications for my alma mater. This year it was obvious many applicants used AI. In years past, my pet peeve was sloppy grammar and spelling, especially on something so important. This year, the mechanics were much better, and I don’t necessarily think that’s a bad use of AI.
The problem is that AI only has so many ways to answer the same question, and after doing this for many years, I have an idea of what to expect. With AI responses, you can feel that what you’re reading isn’t entirely real. Like the article pointed out, it can feel like a fraud. I don’t even think some students wrote their own answers and then used AI to improve them - I think many simply asked AI to answer the questions for them. It was so uncomfortable to decide who out of my pile of applicants to put forward, that I don’t think I’ll volunteer next year.
My sympathies are with the young graduates trying to find their first career job, but I can also see the difficulty companies are facing with AI generated applications.
5 Likes
Exaggerating one’s accomplishments on one’s resume has long been common, which can obscure which applicants have real skills and expertise. However, there may have been considerable diversity in how such exaggerations were done, and how effective they were. That may be less true if applicants commonly use the same AI that produces the same exaggerations for each applicant.
3 Likes
Companies have a lot of stones complaining about kids using AI to get through screening considering that they use AI to reject most resumes. It would not be necessary apart from the system that they themselves deploy.
8 Likes
Most ATS (applicant tracking systems) in use right now do NOT use AI, despite what people believe. They use basic keyword search like it’s 1998. They need a lawyer admitted in Pennsylvania? And you are a paralegal with no JD working in New Orleans? Doesn’t take AI to screen you out. Thousands and thousands of “spray and pray” job applicants every month who don’t meet the minimum requirements. This is not some sophisticated AI here….just the same old criteria screening from a generation ago.
Five years from now? Maybe
1 Like
Of course, if your resume does match, except that you used slightly different words to mean the desired thing, you get screened out.
That also means that some applicants will try keyword maximization in their resumes, even though they may have only peripheral contact with whatever it is.
1 Like
A human being will read the resume which says “hope to take the CPA exam in 2028” and reject it. So these keyword tricks are often a waste of time….
2 Likes
I have a hard time squaring this with the many studies and articles that show a significant proportion of companies do use AI when screening resumes/applicants for entry level jobs and internships, just a google search away. (I am not talking about non-entry level jobs).
It’s my understanding that after initial AI screens (for key words, GPA, and/or major…and to be clear, those ATS systems are AI based) and video interviews/assessments, like via hirevue (which uses AI to assess the content of one’s answers), only then do humans get involved with the high scoring candidates. Is this not accurate for some/many companies?
If not using AI, how are these companies dealing with the volume of apps they get for internships and entry level jobs? (example: Goldman 360K apps for internships in 2025)
2 Likes
Perhaps the disagreement is in what constitutes “AI”. Key word, GPA, and major searches in resumes long predate what is currently seen as AI, and do not magically become AI because AI is a new buzz word.
5 Likes
I posted a link here that details what Greenhouse, a leading ATS, offers in the way of AI, so I will stick with what they say. Productive job search strategies for new grads - #11 by Mwfan1921
1 Like
Oops, meant to post this here ( there are 2 job prospects threads)
1 Like
And every photoshop (30+ years old) is now AI.
2 Likes
Employers to college students: Never mind that 4.0 GPA. Go out and get a summer job.
1 Like
It’s paywalled to me so I cannot read it but there is no question that experience begets experience. If you can’t get an internship, get a job - absolutely. I truly believe it will get you more consideration than without. In fact, many internships say they are looking for previous work experience. It doesn’t have to be related - that you are showing responsibility, teamwork and more - it matters.
1 Like
I’m not going to disagree, but my older son didn’t work during summers throughout high school or college ( for legitimate personal reasons). My younger son worked throughout both. We really thought there would be a difference in their job hunting experiences. They are basically identical so far.
3 Likes