That's why I used N = 200. I considered all the factors, including that an agent might recognize the quality and relevance, but not reply since there is no call-to-action. After all, it wasn't a query—it's deliberately off-format (because the format is intentionally hostile to talent.)
Ultimately, no study can prove that agents categorically do not read, which I do not believe to be true. I think it's extremely rare that they read, and the fact that an N = 200 study found no signs of life is indicative of this.
yes, i don’t dispute the experimental implications.
as a sole datapoint; in my experience
as a hiring manager i did my best to read and consider as many resumes as possible, however if i chose to reject i used the form letter rather than crafting a reply. i imagined my time was better spent considering more applicants than on the rejection letters.
as a job applicant i am expecting a form letter of rejection so i seldom read them myself. i very much appreciate the closure of rejection rather than the uncertainty of no response.
i loosely understand the meaning of N=200, however i admit i am completely unfamiliar with the connection between hypothesis 1 of “they don’t read” to hypothesis 2 “the nature of their reply correlates to hypothesis 1”.
regardless, love your writing, both quality and content.
perhaps i missed it, but what if the agent did take the time to read then did not take the time necessary to craft a meaningful reply?
what if they assume their reply would not be read, so instead just used a form letter?
therefore is your hypothesis really proven?
i love the experiment and the method.
thank you for writing.
M
That's why I used N = 200. I considered all the factors, including that an agent might recognize the quality and relevance, but not reply since there is no call-to-action. After all, it wasn't a query—it's deliberately off-format (because the format is intentionally hostile to talent.)
Ultimately, no study can prove that agents categorically do not read, which I do not believe to be true. I think it's extremely rare that they read, and the fact that an N = 200 study found no signs of life is indicative of this.
yes, i don’t dispute the experimental implications.
as a sole datapoint; in my experience
as a hiring manager i did my best to read and consider as many resumes as possible, however if i chose to reject i used the form letter rather than crafting a reply. i imagined my time was better spent considering more applicants than on the rejection letters.
as a job applicant i am expecting a form letter of rejection so i seldom read them myself. i very much appreciate the closure of rejection rather than the uncertainty of no response.
i loosely understand the meaning of N=200, however i admit i am completely unfamiliar with the connection between hypothesis 1 of “they don’t read” to hypothesis 2 “the nature of their reply correlates to hypothesis 1”.
regardless, love your writing, both quality and content.
best,
M
Brilliant. Thank you. I'd like to read you and I am subscribing.