John McCoy of Pathway

[malvolio]

146, 96, 54, 121, 76 - number of responses i have had for each advert.

there is not a skills shortage in testing.

OK, and how many of them can actually do the job, as opposed to saying they can?

[phonemonkey]

circa 37% could realistically do the job, as in they could physically carry out the tasks to a reasonable level and would probably get by ok.

So its just a case of picking the elite.

However, I'll only ever send over 3 CVs max.

[decode]

circa 37% could realistically do the job, as in they could physically carry out the tasks to a reasonable level and would probably get by ok.

So its just a case of picking the elite.

However, I'll only ever send over 3 CVs max.

Do you ever take 'incentives' from contractors to send over their cv?

[Buffoon]

circa 37% could realistically do the job, as in they could physically carry out the tasks to a reasonable level and would probably get by ok.

So its just a case of picking the elite.

However, I'll only ever send over 3 CVs max.

So you are so good that you can reject over 90% of what you class as capable applicants (97% of all applicants). Do you pass these stats on to your client.

Do you explain to clients who complain that they cannot find staff that it may be because of the competance of your filtering that denied your client access to 97% of the people who want to do the job and think they are capable of doing it?

[HankWangford]

circa 37% could realistically do the job

Amazing sweeping statement, did you get them all to attend your office and give them a competency test in the tools they would be using, if not how the fek do you know 37% could do the job. Or maybe it highlights yet another p1ss poor job advert if your getting so many (63%) duff applicants

[malvolio]

circa 37% could realistically do the job, as in they could physically carry out the tasks to a reasonable level and would probably get by ok.

So its just a case of picking the elite.

However, I'll only ever send over 3 CVs max.

You may be the exception, but that usually translates as selecting "those with all the buzzwords, then those who have worked in the same industry, then the first three I come to"...

[phonemonkey]

its quite simple really, i know my market, i know my technologies, i understand my clients needs and my candidates motivations.

i do my best to match these things up.

with regards to rejecting 97% of suitable applicants of course i do. if i've got 140 responses and around 40 of them are good enough I'm not going to send 40 CVs to my client. that would be pointless.

i pick the best and they go across.

[tim123]

class, my very own thread - this is the stuff of which dreams are made.

FYI - all the jobs advertised are real, if you're good enough you may get an interview. However, a lot of people apply so you will have to be very good.

And how do you know if someone is 'good enough' before interviewe.

The interview process is there to weed people out on quality. IME the pre-interview process weeds people out on three things: price, price and price.

tim

[hyperD]

Well, the agency would have to interview a whole bunch of candidates and understand the technology and project fully. This is called added value.

However, it's cheaper to let the client do that instead.

[Buffoon]

its quite simple really, i know my market, i know my technologies, i understand my clients needs and my candidates motivations.

i do my best to match these things up.

with regards to rejecting 97% of suitable applicants of course i do. if i've got 140 responses and around 40 of them are good enough I'm not going to send 40 CVs to my client. that would be pointless.

i pick the best and they go across.

But do you explain to the client the size of the sample and that the CV's that they see are just the lottery winners. Do they understand that there were plenty more candidates that they did not get past your arbitrary filtration.

BTW, 40 out of 140 is 28% not 37%.