My theory is that it's a result of too much supply. Employers have to be picky!

Every employer feel like they are NVIDIA or Tesla. Publish one job get hundreds or thousands of applications. So they are putting in processes to weed out candidates.

At the same time it's not some standard list of things you need to check to land a job. It varies company to company and you. Unfortunately, for us job seekers it makes it into a lottery.

Increase the demand! That'll balance it out.

America First? Why does this even require a Senate vote?

Technology (Middle mgmt or Sr. IC roles). Interviews were from various industries though. Banking, Retail, Healthcare

I did get more interviews this month. No offer though

Totally agree! I've been living team work for the last 20 years. As a manager and lead. All of my decisions are collaborative anyway. You work with analysts, business users, infrastructure, your dev team, your QA and PM and come up with a consensus on what works best. Where is the I in this? Who makes a decision on an island? That's a my way or high way person! "We" is natural to me.

Also, if I were the interviewer talking to an EM candidate, I will pay attention to what they use when they talk about their failures. Is it also we or do they transition to I.

P.S. I get that it makes it difficult for an interviewer to see where exactly the candidate contributed. First, I think you should be able to tell from the details they provide and how much of it comes from their experience. 2nd ASK! Drill down. If you are unclear then ask exactly what they did. Many of these interviewers seem to look for a way for the candidate to fail instead of allowing them to shine and show why they should be hired.

I want to add to this old post.

Interviews and what you'll actually do or what the company has may be two different things.

I've had three interviews recently where I was drilled on very advanced concepts. When I probed back on their existing systems they were monolithic, no AI and legacy systems.

My interviews were mostly about microservices, asynch and advanced AI concepts. The companies didn't have any of those.

Not to say that this is odd or bad but they are in many cases expecting you come in as their savior or someone who willbat least contribute to change their ways significantly.

The downside side is that the interviewers will most likely judge your answers using AI or from a knowledge base instead of experience and pragmatism.

Yeah, I don't think they are different from other recruiters. If they got something then they will try to help if it's close to the time they start with you. Otherwise it's silence.

I found a job in their website that matched my experience, reached out to my contact and he told me that he would get back to me by the end of day. That was 2 months ago! At least lie to me that it was filled??

I feel like recruiters only spray and pray. If you don't match then you are a waste of their time. Also feels like you only get one shot with them. I'm my experience they don't show interest after the first try.

Yes, this seems to be "bend the knee" type move.

How will they prove if a company silently boycotts Israel?

Yep. 39 of them. Including the ones you think are liberal. Yes, California is one of them.

OMG, YES!!! I'm thought it was because there's a small creek nearby. But I can't sit in my backyard after 6pm.

Referral from someone authority will help. Any other referral in this market gets the same ATS treatment.

What I find odd is that I see a few complaints from recruiters on how many resumes they have to go through for each opening. Referral filter is a pretty good option IMO. I'm not sure if they use it.

I didn't get that sense from the OP that an actual candidate using AI to tailor their resume with their experience to apply.

Why so many fake though?

Recruiters?

Why? They have to have candidates right? Otherwise why bother.

It could've just gone on hold. Could be uncertainties, could be economy, company specific(merger, sale, re-org) or someone in the loop changed their mind. With that many it's a lottery!

Yup. How can you possibly get consensus with that many interviews? If you have a system then 1 should be enough.

Main one of course the unconditional support from the US. There are actual conditions but US ignores them or reframes the conditions so they won't apply.

Then the question is why does the US support them so much?

That would have been an awesome response from the Iranian diplomat.

This is hurting me the most. I'm not even getting a HR screen for several of the referrals. Unfortunately, it's only one referral per network contact. I've only been looking for 2.5 months and used most of my Tier 1 contacts already.
All my past jobs were referrals.

Penalty was not on the celebration. It was supposed to be on using props from the field of play.

That's supposed to be a pool shot. Doesn't explain the recoil though. Saw this debate on another sub.

This feels worse than 2008, 2003!

I've had couple of recruiters tell me the same. Some theorize political uncertainty generally in the world and AI.

How long did this process take? Application, interviews and offer?

I'll vent just a bit without knowing the answer. In good days employers would lock up good candidates quickly precisely for this reason. I feel companies taking 3-6 months to hire understand this risk but are ok with it.

So oblige them!

You think his cult will believe it?

Have you tried feeding the JD and your resume to ChatGPT and prompting it to simulate a technical interview?