## application forms (2)
In February, I already wrote about application forms, but I am going to do so again, with reference to an excellent blog on the subject by writer/teacher Jack Havana. Read it - he's got it spot on, about the demise of the Curriculum Vitae.
In short, Jack asked two prospect employers why they asked him to fill in a form, when his CV surely told them more about who he is, what his personality is like, and how suitable he is for the role. On top of that, his CV (like my own) has been successful in the past in getting him interviews at the very least. His creativity being squeezed into an application form, surely made no sense in applying for a vacancy for creative writers? Especially when a vacancy for a gardener requires the exact same form. The employers responded: apparently the forms guarantee the application process is fair and transparent, and requiring applicants to 'work' to apply, it filters out certain losers already. In truth, it only facilitates things for the losers who work in HR, who can ask the computer to search for keywords. It's a lot less time consuming, which can be beneficial especially in large companies that receive hundreds of applications.
Oddly enough, application forms are especially popular with public bodies and the creative industry. Any job you might find with a council, a museum, a political party or even the Forestry Commission, requires its own form. On the contrary, jobs in IT even with enormous companies like Unilever, Shell or IBM, do not. Surely if there indeed application forms make recruitment more efficient, IT is where it would have been welcomed with open arms - if not invented? Apart from that, while a council department may struggle with 50 or so applications for a job, Microsoft posting a vacancy for a developer would receive at least a hundred fold. So why are cover letters and CV's efficient enough there? The simple truth is that there's plenty of software out there to quickly compare candidates. Hell, even Windows Desktop Search could assist in filtering boring CV's from eye-catching ones.
Why do these public bodies insist on them then? No doubt it is a cost-cutting exercise. If a prospective applicant is confronted with an application form that will take a few hours to fill in, most won't bother. And if you can't be bothers, such is the reasoning, you weren't a good candidate to begin with. It saves the recruiter quite a bit of time and money. What these HR loons fail to realise is that a CV, crafted and perfected over many years, cost more work to begin with. Having to do it all over again, for every job, is needlessly frustrating for the candidate. For example, I now work 44 hours a week and commute 4 hours a day, leaving me only the evenings, weekends and work breaks to fill in their stupid form. So if I do, it proves I have a bad attitude at work and no social life. The drones that do fill in the forms surely have more time and probably less imagination. And if that is what councils and government bodies are fishing for, it's no wonder their staff have a bad reputation.
Application forms should be banned, and they could easily go the way of David Brent if applicants would simply refuse to fill them in. Unfortunately though I don't think that will happen. The relation between employer and applicant is completely out of balance. With the hyped credit crunch that'll soon result in higher unemployment figures, that will surely only get worse. Job applicants simply have to understand that they are worthless, and that getting an interview is on a par with going to heaven. Recruiters are the new clergy - you had better live solemnly, go to the Job Centre on the day of our lord.. Monday.. And praise the Human Resources departments.
Well. In reference to your recent advert on the internet, which describes a vacancy for mindless office drones, I'd like to send you back to hell. You can find my CV attached. I am sure you will agree I am an excellent candidate for dragging you there by your feet.
In short, Jack asked two prospect employers why they asked him to fill in a form, when his CV surely told them more about who he is, what his personality is like, and how suitable he is for the role. On top of that, his CV (like my own) has been successful in the past in getting him interviews at the very least. His creativity being squeezed into an application form, surely made no sense in applying for a vacancy for creative writers? Especially when a vacancy for a gardener requires the exact same form. The employers responded: apparently the forms guarantee the application process is fair and transparent, and requiring applicants to 'work' to apply, it filters out certain losers already. In truth, it only facilitates things for the losers who work in HR, who can ask the computer to search for keywords. It's a lot less time consuming, which can be beneficial especially in large companies that receive hundreds of applications.
Oddly enough, application forms are especially popular with public bodies and the creative industry. Any job you might find with a council, a museum, a political party or even the Forestry Commission, requires its own form. On the contrary, jobs in IT even with enormous companies like Unilever, Shell or IBM, do not. Surely if there indeed application forms make recruitment more efficient, IT is where it would have been welcomed with open arms - if not invented? Apart from that, while a council department may struggle with 50 or so applications for a job, Microsoft posting a vacancy for a developer would receive at least a hundred fold. So why are cover letters and CV's efficient enough there? The simple truth is that there's plenty of software out there to quickly compare candidates. Hell, even Windows Desktop Search could assist in filtering boring CV's from eye-catching ones.
Why do these public bodies insist on them then? No doubt it is a cost-cutting exercise. If a prospective applicant is confronted with an application form that will take a few hours to fill in, most won't bother. And if you can't be bothers, such is the reasoning, you weren't a good candidate to begin with. It saves the recruiter quite a bit of time and money. What these HR loons fail to realise is that a CV, crafted and perfected over many years, cost more work to begin with. Having to do it all over again, for every job, is needlessly frustrating for the candidate. For example, I now work 44 hours a week and commute 4 hours a day, leaving me only the evenings, weekends and work breaks to fill in their stupid form. So if I do, it proves I have a bad attitude at work and no social life. The drones that do fill in the forms surely have more time and probably less imagination. And if that is what councils and government bodies are fishing for, it's no wonder their staff have a bad reputation.
Application forms should be banned, and they could easily go the way of David Brent if applicants would simply refuse to fill them in. Unfortunately though I don't think that will happen. The relation between employer and applicant is completely out of balance. With the hyped credit crunch that'll soon result in higher unemployment figures, that will surely only get worse. Job applicants simply have to understand that they are worthless, and that getting an interview is on a par with going to heaven. Recruiters are the new clergy - you had better live solemnly, go to the Job Centre on the day of our lord.. Monday.. And praise the Human Resources departments.
Well. In reference to your recent advert on the internet, which describes a vacancy for mindless office drones, I'd like to send you back to hell. You can find my CV attached. I am sure you will agree I am an excellent candidate for dragging you there by your feet.