
70 job interviews in 17 days - dookehster
http://blog.brandonwang.ca/2017/06/how-to-get-70-job-interviews-in-17-days.html
======
codingdave
"5.4% conversion"

That is the key number here. And that was just to get an interview. He got 6
offers from those 70 interviews, which is over a 90% rejection rate, despite
some pretty good credentials in his background.

Personally, I go the other way. I send out resumes selectively, and run closer
to about a 30% response rate. And In my entire career, I've only ever NOT
gotten an offer twice. Not because I am some extremely special coder --- I'm
not. But because I take some care in selecting who I talk to in the first
place to make sure we're a match before even getting that far.

~~~
egman_ekki
I would like to believe this, too. However, after spending 6+ months helping
my SO applying for more than 100 positions, handcrafting every CV and cover
letter for each position, highlighting the skills that each position required,
and all that we got back was maybe 5 negative answers, I think it's time to
try the mass spamming approach. It's true the positions were not hardskills
programming ones (more BA/data analyst oriented), but I still find it quite
baffling.

~~~
godelmachine
May I ask what's SO?

~~~
dotancohen
Ah, an old /. refugee I see!

------
jroseattle
> the script I used to algorithmically apply

I'm not the same as everyone else, so take my opinions with a grain of salt.

I'm a hiring manager, with many openings. To those who are considering this
approach, keep this in mind:

\- This industry is smaller than you think. I have colleagues all over town
and across the country. It's not uncommon for me to be maybe 2-3 degrees of
separation from any person or place on your resume. If I think you automated
your way into a conversation with us, I don't discount you right away but I
highly doubt your sincerity.

\- Generic templated messages vs. thoughtful direct messages are _easy_ to
detect. Even if I'm wrong, if it doesn't pass the smell test, I will pass.

Do NOT kid yourself about the importance of managing quality vs. quantity in
discussion with us. This process likely works in landing you an interview, but
it can ignore the human element. To me, how you get in the door matters.
Picking out the interested-after-the-fact vs. those who have done their
homework on us is easy, and that matters greatly to me.

I hire for the long-term and career-growth minded, and I recognize anyone on
my staff can up and leave at any moment. I commit time, resources and energy
to ensuring my staff is healthy and happy with us. This saturate-the-airwaves
approach to introductions, even if refined, makes me think you're going to
treat us as a temporary stop, simply looking to jump to the next "better"
opportunity, and therefore leaves me less interested in devoting time to you.

If all this just sounds like better execution with this approach, you're
right. Just remember you don't get a second chance with us to make a first
impression.

~~~
SmellTheGlove
I'm a hiring manager as well and let me throw out a partial counterpoint: What
OP is doing isn't because he doesn't want to be genuine with you. It's
motivated because the HR screen is the hurdle to overcome, and there will be
no opportunity to have a genuine conversation with you unless he gets past the
HR filter first. I have a solution to this that works for me, but maybe not
for everyone - I have HR do a very basic screen for my posting (candidate in
market, unless I'm going to relo; current career level somewhere in my
ballpark), with the exception that I want everything that includes a cover
letter.

If you're not big enough to have an initial screen happening, then obviously
my point doesn't apply and you're entirely correct. But for many, getting
anywhere near the hiring manager is the most difficult step.

Plus, from my memories as an applicant - to startups and larger firms alike -
I can't tell you how many times in my past I've taken the step of writing a
nice, personalized cover letter and a tailored resume for something which was
a reasonably good fit, only to either never hear a word or to receive an
automated form rejection in return. Courtesy is a two way street - if your ATS
blasts rejections to people, you can't get upset with candidates blasting
applications to play the numbers.

~~~
jroseattle
Yes and thank you, very good points.

We are a larger organization, and getting past the HR filter is
understandable. We have taken significant measures to improve that step with
us, and it has yielded much better throughput on worthy candidates. At sounds
as though we do something similar internally -- incorporate shared reviews
from our team with inbound resumes.

And to your point about a two-way street -- I couldn't agree more. We respond
to everyone, and do so manually. We don't automate that way, as I want a human
contact behind the message. (We don't get thousands of resumes, but we do get
in the low hundreds.) I've found executing those directly is meaningful and
translates to better communication over time. I think of it as a function of
customer service, not recruiting.

To really tie it all together: we want to speak with those who have genuine
interest, and are willing to put effort into it from the beginning of any
conversation with us. We hope our candidates do the same.

~~~
SmellTheGlove
I agree with all of that. And just to be clear, I never disagreed with the
principle of your original post. The thing is, for everyone doing it like you
(or let's say us, since it sounds like we have a similar approach), there are
hundreds of organizations letting the ATS handle it. Unfortunately, everyone
else letting the ATS do it is going to harm our efforts indirectly.

I should add that this is probably easy for me to say since I'm outside of a
tech hub and also receive a lower volume. If I were getting thousands per
vacancy, I'd have to find a different approach, but handing the keys to the
ATS is not how I'd want to have it go.

~~~
jroseattle
> everyone else letting the ATS do it is going to harm our efforts indirectly.

Yep, this. I actually see this as a future competitive advantage for us. I
want us to be known for having a really positive experience for anyone who
wishes to work with us, no matter the choice/decision that ultimately happens.
It will take time to get there, but consistency builds reputation.

------
onion2k
The lesson here isn't that spamming works - it does now, but it'll very soon
stop working if everyone does it. The real lesson is that applying for
positions at companies that you want to work at, even if they aren't
advertising the job you do, works. Send them your resume regardless and see
what happens.

~~~
lathiat
Meanwhile unemployment benefits in certain countries (e.g. Australia) legally
require you to do this to keep your benefits. Literally applying.

On the one hand I get that you need to require them to do something and I
don't have an immediately better idea, but on the other hand they keep talking
about increasing the number of jobs you have to apply for etc despite their
literally not being enough jobs for everyone on benefits.

Fun times

~~~
delazeur
> Meanwhile unemployment benefits in certain countries (e.g. Australia)
> legally require you to do this to keep your benefits. Literally applying.

I had to document a certain number of applications per week to get
unemployment in the U.S., but those policies vary by state.

~~~
mjevans
During the height of the recession I had to do the same (also US).

After a while you can tell that a good number of those positions are just
recruiting firm honeypots; which makes the search both aggravating and
depressing (since you feel like there aren't any /real/ jobs out there).

------
dookehster
Author here.

A few notes:

I'm not proposing high touch methods are incorrect. I'm proposing there exists
an alternative.

HR professionals, the receiving end, spend their day spamming people on
LinkedIn, email, etc. The same is true about sales people, marketers, and
anybody trying to get the word out, except they do it at scale. I'm a little
surprised by how many folks take issue with messaging people who might be
interested and also do exactly what you're doing.

If everybody does this, then job hunting becomes more like marketing since
your message/resume has to stand out more. Consumers are bombarded with
messages every day, they're good at ignoring things they don't want. The folks
doing the hiring would become better "consumers".

Engineering roles are, in general, way easier to land than a non-engineering
roles because there aren't enough decent engineers.

~~~
John_Cena
I have a BS computer engineering from GT and the only interviews I have
received have been from companies wishing me to sign a 3 year contract or
other 1*star glassdoor type shenanigans. I am trying to stay positive but I
have lost hope. Ive done the mass submitting and specific tailoring strategies
to no avail. Now I wish I had gotten a degree in ANY other engineering
discipline. Any advice?

~~~
dookehster
Sorry to hear it's been hard. It depends what you're going for.

I'm an EE, less relevant than CE to CS (if you're going after software
positions). There are plenty of EEs, physicists, etc. who are in top posts at
most tech companies for software. Your degree isn't limiting you.

Job hunting is about demonstrating value to people who matter. If you can
demonstrate value to the hiring person (hiring manager, HR, etc.), then you'll
get hired.

So while the resume and education are one thing, they're really the tip of the
iceberg. You can contribute on open source, you can showcase papers you've
authored, you can build relationships with hiring managers to show that you
know your stuff.

If you're going for hardware, hardware positions are lower paying, harder to
get, and require more experience than software positions. You might want to
apply for internships. Broadcom, Qualcomm, Nvidia, all have great internship
programs. They might get you to do fun things you'd never do as a full timer
as well (Apple gets lots of interns to go to Shenzhen, Nvidia gets it's
interns to drop boxes on the floor to test packaging).

Almost all tech companies I've ever interacted with have different staff that
deal with new grads/university students than the rest of HR. A typical HR
person probably doesn't like new candidates, but new grads are what university
recruiters are supposed to do. I'd seek out university recruiters specifically
(you can search "university recruiting" on LinkedIn).

I know lots of people who start companies because the jobs they're qualified
for, suck. Honestly, I started my first company because I engineering stopped
being challenging/fun and no business wanted to take me on. Now I can say I've
scaled businesses, sold my B2B SaaS product to $B companies, etc.

Finally, on the motivation/keeping the hope alive. I've had my fair share of
dark times. Tony Robbins, Art Williams, and Zig Ziglar are all great to listen
to.

Best of luck!

~~~
John_Cena
I appreciate you taking your time to respond, I will try to find university
recruiters.

------
110011
This is a classic case of tragedy of the commons. I don't find anything
particularly noteworthy about this to warrant communicating this to a larger
audience.

Unilaterally spamming potential employers in this way may result in improving
your outcomes, but at whose cost?

~~~
ahartman00
Exactly, this is a self reinforcing feedback loop. I've heard about getting
200 resumes for an open position multiple times. Obviously it varies. Assuming
40 1 hour interviews per week, this would be 5 weeks. Also, your employees
aren't working during that time, which can be bad if you have way too much
work, right now. So there's a need to filter heavily. Enter filter by
keywords, or maybe even discrimination.

while(true) {

1\. faced with a large number of resumes, employer become aggressive about
filtering.

2\. faced with a large number of rejections or not hearing back, employee
sends even more resumes.

}

------
cairo_x
It was really hard, and took many spammy attempts, but you can do it too!

 _homeless dude looks up hopefully, fishes out his tattered, vacant resume_

"In my case, my message was: I've built 2 companies, got a strong technical
background, worked at places like Microsoft/Amazon/Nvidia, and I'm looking to
work with great people."

Oh.

~~~
mikekchar
I'm really not trying to start an argument here, because there are many
disadvantages that are hard/impossible to hurdle. However, being unemployed
comes with a single, potentially powerful advantage: time. As a programmer,
you need a computer (cheap second hand one is fine), you need a place to work
and you need and internet connection.

If you are unemployed for more than about 6 months, people start to look at
you suspiciously, but after that you can't really fall any further. Being
unemployed for 1 year or 2 years can be an advantage if you use that time
productively. It won't appeal to everyone, but battling back from nothing is
also a compelling story.

Like I said, there will be many people who can not do it, for one reason or
another, but I think the message that brand is important is not wrong.

------
ufmace
It seems very odd to me to treat the job application process in this way. If
nothing else, interviews are pretty much an all-day affair, at least in the
sense that even if you have a short one, it's still going to be tough to
schedule 2 in a day. Add that onto how many companies want multiple rounds of
interviews, phone screens, take-home projects, etc and you get that you want
to have a good idea that you actually want to work for a company before you
apply and go for an interview. That doesn't mesh very well with writing
scripts to mass-apply to companies and going on multiple dozens of interviews.

------
lmeyerov
As a founder perspective:

1\. I highly second using angel list. Modern founders know, and we
(graphistry) list there!

2\. ... We are overwhelmed by candidates from there, both by junior or bigco
candidates who are hard to distinguish just on paper, and senior candidates
who we are not sure are serious. Probably ~100% of the people we talk to
didn't do the author's generic approach, but shared a carefully crafted 1-3
paragraphs. The more you go out of your way, the more we notice.

Take it from the perspective of a neat small team (like ours!) who is excited
about what we do & are growing. Whoever we hire now has a huge impact on what
we're building, and as we're planning out the next 3-4 doublings of our team,
your personal DNA & culture will determine the success of the 10 people who
descend from you. You want to apply to teams who are spending time on doing
this well.. and in turn, do it well yourself.

Also.. build@graphistry.com if you agree ;-)

------
dahart
Even after reading the intro, knowing what was coming, it still somehow
surprised me to bump into the word "funnel" referring to job applications.
Good way to think about it if applying for lots and lots of jobs is the goal!

> Having lots of offers takes a lot of psychological pressure off of the
> process.

This intrigues me the most, I'd love to hear more about it. I personally would
have expected the opposite before reading this. Often having multiple job
offers makes me freeze up and worry a lot about which one I should choose. But
maybe that's because I'm worrying about 2-3 jobs I want, as opposed to 70. I'm
often optimizing relationships and my own happiness potential rather than
compensation. That one sentence does make me want to try an approach like
this.

It'd be equally easy to spam without a script, right? This one looks like it
hit "Apply" 1300 times in 1.5 hours - I'm looking at the 4 second delay. The
script might be a 10-20 minute job, but I'd be paranoid enough about running
something like this with my name attached that testing it and making
absolutely certain it didn't go haywire would very likely take me a few hours.
I probably would have done something that didn't scale, and clicked 1,300
times manually.

I did chuckle a little when creativity was mentioned multiple times, for a
process that is automated and "spam". It is a bit creative, so I don't mean to
judge - I'm seeing the word spam in many comments here - but I feel like there
are some much more creative ways to get exactly the job you want, and the idea
here might be more about DIY than "creative" per se.

------
JCDenton2052
Personally, I would be reluctant to go to a face-to-face interview that hasn't
been preceded by a phone interview and (ideally) a technical test.

By the time I step into the employer's office, I am 90% sure I would like to
work for them. Anything else would be inefficient use of time, both mine and
the employer's.

------
home_boi
> Startup compensation can be right up there with the big companies.

Does anyone know how to find these companies when you're already at the high
end of the spectrum? There are thousands of start ups and even shooting an
email or checking LinkedIn for previous work history of current engineers can
be a time drain to figure this out.

Ideally, the compensation would be something like > 80% total comp of big tech
company in liquid money + a lot of private RSU's ( > 50% of big tech total
comp)

~~~
mrisoli
Most things about job seeking are a time drain, not only it is hard to find
companies because of fragmentation but when companies use terms such as
'developer', 'programmer', 'engineer'(plus the weird ones: 'ninja'/
'rockstar') it gets much harder to search, I would kill for someone to come up
with international standard codes for these like SE0001 for a software
engineer.

------
andrewingram
I recently had 4 good offers on the table at the same time and it was
unbelievably stressful for me, I don't ever want to go through that again. I
don't see the value in applying to even more companies and increasing that
stress further...

~~~
billf1953
This has to be some sort of logic fallacy. With multiple offers you are
guaranteed to be able to get higher pay, more time off, and/or better working
conditions. You can't see the opportunity cost for one job offer, but
tradeoffs to other jobs still exist. You might still be happier more
productive and better qualified for a different job at a different company.

~~~
geezerjay
> This has to be some sort of logic fallacy.

Not a Devo fan, are you?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buridan's_ass](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buridan's_ass)

> With multiple offers you are guaranteed to be able to get higher pay, more
> time off, and/or better working conditions.

Actually, you aren't. You are, however, free to pick one of many offers, and
one of them may suit you better than the others. Perhaps you can negotiate
better offers, but this doesn't mean that a potential employer may be willing
to present a better counter-offer.

~~~
Retra
They don't have to be willing to present a better counter. If they don't, you
just eliminate them from the pool and your decision is that much easier. If
you are afraid to do that, then the multiple offers are only illusory anyway,
since you would clearly have a preference you should be acting on.

~~~
geezerjay
> If they don't, you just eliminate them from the pool and your decision is
> that much easier.

You're somehow assuming that salary is the only relevant parameter in choosing
a job, or even that all jobs are equivalent in career growth and creating more
job opportunities. Some jobs are dead-ends and career killers, even if they
pay more. This sort of stuff needs to be considered.

------
donovanm
Is job searching really at a point now where hiring people to mass apply to
jobs for you is an actual suggestion?

------
IPS3c
Any advice for interviewing? I have a second interview coming up soon.

