HR becoming pickier?

Published

So I just read a post on here where there was a vigorous debate about what the availability of new grad jobs is. What really caught my eye is a comment about HR becoming pickier. I've seen similar comments in other posts and if that is true, it makes me mad. It sounds to me like something that people do because they think it is better but really instead makes is harder for everyone.

What is the difference between someone who graduates at the top and bottom of the class? I'm sure we've all seen people whom we would not want caring for us, but is that person always at the bottom of the class in terms of grades? I just don't understand that thought process. Are patient outcomes dramatically increasing because HR thinks they got the best of the best? Is magnet status suddenly being awarded? In other words, how much does this "becoming pickier" actually matter?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Pediatric Pulmonology and Allergy.

GPA is only one small part of the picture. There's also prior experience (nursing and non-nursing related), community involvement, and, probably most important, who you know in the hospital.

Whether HR is being picky about the right things... who knows. Often it's hard to know who's going to be a great nurse vs. a so-so nurse until they're on the floor. Some jobs actually have you write essays describing how you handled various clinical situations.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

I agree there are a number of variables. I've not heard of the essay but that seems like a good idea. Not only does it give them insight to your clinical experience, but it also shows how well you can write.

My skin crawls though when I see things about them becoming "choosier". That might have some benefit but probably not as much as folks think. I heard a story on NPR about this firm whose rep told the reporter that they cannot get applicants for their job. So I looked up the company and looked at the job description. I just shook my head because they are doing what a lot of places outside of nursing are doing. They believe there all all these great candidates on the market so they wrote the description as a wish list of everything they would like to have. I have NEVER in my life seen a description like that. The job was in my broad field and I had not heard of half the things they were discussing. On top of that, they wanted 5-6 years experience on most of the bullet points. It's disingenuous to write a description like that and go on NPR and complain about a lack of applicants. I personally hope they are unable to fill the position because that is a form of greed and will do nothing to put the country back to work.

If they are able to fill that position, and say the economy picks up and their business takes off, the risk is them assuming causality between the hiring of the "great" person and the business. That probably applies to a lot of fields, including nursing, but unless you establish a direct link, there is no causality.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Pediatric Pulmonology and Allergy.

The level of "choosiness" is in direct proportion to the number of applicants. They have to have SOME way of deciding who to pick when they have 1000+ applicants for a single position. What do you think they should do, close their eyes and pick one at random? Sure, probably some of their criteria don't matter that much in the long run, and it's very likely that the randomly chosen nurse will do just as well.

I once read an article about one of the highest ranked medical schools that had 5 slots open right before the term started. They started calling their alternates, but everyone had already found a place in a different school. Finally they came to the bottom of the list, 5 applicants who had not been accepted to ANY medical school, and told them that there was room for them. Guess what? Those 5 did just as well in school as all the other "top" applicants who had been accepted way ahead of them.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

It's a seller's market (so to speak) they get to be as choosy as they want.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

I had a recruiter (in my field, not nursing, which I am only contemplating doing) talk to me and she bemoaned how employers are acting. Her words, "they act like it's an employers market and want to interview everyone under the sun and when they finally settle on someone, that person has already been picked up (by someone who didn't have that attitude).

It is exactly that point that a lot of that attitude is counterproductive and can hurt them in the long run. I am all for quality healthcare professionals being hired but the kind of antics to which I am referring are counterproductive.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

But it IS an employer's market. There are far more applicants than there are jobs. They CAN be as choosy as they want to be. These are all realities. Are you upset with the specific criteria they're using? Or upset that they are being choosy?

When you have 4X's the amount of applicants as positions, for a new grad position....what criteria should they be using? The essay idea is a lovely one...but that's A LOT of essays to read!

Up Vote Up Vote ×

I'm not disputing that it is an employer's market. What I'm saying is that subscribing to the viewpoint of "it's an employer's market" if you are an employer or "it's an employee's market" if you are an employee can be unhelpful if you take it too far. It's like the law of diminishing returns, which says that continued and continued application of resources to a problem eventually leads to a point where increases in whatever level off. Studying is an example.

The point of bringing up the story on NPR is that I felt it was an example of taking things too far. They created an exhaustive list of what they wanted and then bemoaned the fact that they had no takers.

I have no problems with people being picky to an extent. If I was in a hospital, I'd want nothing but the best care. But if you have only a handful of people being hired on at a hospital in a city with multiple nursing schools, does that really mean that only the folks who got hired on are the best of the best?

I can just see an HR meeting where they discuss becoming pickier but without a way to measure it. Are they asking analytical questions in interviews, such as dosage questions, to see how people think on their feet, or are they going into it with the attitude of "we're the employers, we'll be picky?" Unless the HR people are completely south of ignorant, you have to have some sort of framework to back up your attitude other than just the attitude itself.

Certain companies such as Google are famous for asking seemingly off the wall questions to see how people analyze crazy situations. One that I got right was 'how many golf balls could you fit into a school bus?' You start by making a rough estimate of the volume of a school bus. Then a rough estimate of the volume of a golf ball. Do some simple math, use round numbers, and you have an approximate answer.

My bottom line on it is this: I know with the flood of applicants they have to use some sort of selection criteria other than who has the best smile. But carrying with it the snarky attitude of "we get to be picky" is ignorant. Throw some random dosage questions, conversion questions, things like that at people when they aren't expecting it. I bet a ton of folks wouldn't get those right in a random interview. But use something that is verifiable and connected to patient outcomes, not just a snarky attitude.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
I'm not disputing that it is an employer's market. What I'm saying is that subscribing to the viewpoint of "it's an employer's market" if you are an employer or "it's an employee's market" if you are an employee can be unhelpful if you take it too far.

The point of bringing up the story on NPR is that I felt it was an example of taking things too far. They created an exhaustive list of what they wanted and then bemoaned the fact that they had no takers.

I have no problems with people being picky to an extent. If I was in a hospital, I'd want nothing but the best care. But if you have only a handful of people being hired on at a hospital in a city with multiple nursing schools, does that really mean that only the folks who got hired on are the best of the best?

I can just see an HR meeting where they discuss becoming pickier but without a way to measure it. Are they asking analytical questions in interviews, such as dosage questions, to see how people think on their feet, or are they going into it with the attitude of "we're the employers, we'll be picky?" Unless the HR people are completely south of ignorant, you have to have some sort of framework to back up your attitude other than just the attitude itself.

Certain companies such as Google are famous for asking seemingly off the wall questions to see how people analyze crazy situations. One that I got right was 'how many golf balls could you fit into a school bus?' You start by making a rough estimate of the volume of a school bus. Then a rough estimate of the volume of a golf ball. Do some simple math, use round numbers, and you have an approximate answer.

My bottom line on it is this: I know with the flood of applicants they have to use some sort of selection criteria other than who has the best smile. But carrying with it the snarky attitude of "we get to be picky" is ignorant. Throw some random dosage questions, conversion questions, things like that at people when they aren't expecting it. I bet a ton of folks wouldn't get those right in a random interview. But use something that is verifiable and connected to patient outcomes, not just a snarky attitude.

It's a different ball of wax once you're at the interview stage. You're original example of GPA is used as a screener to save the HR departments by excluding the majority of the applicants based on a numerical criteria that can be screened by computers. Saves a TON on man hours, because instead of paying someone to sift through hundreds of applications....they're now just going through a subset.

Truly, in my opinion, there are enough things to actually be upset about....and this isn't one of them.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Labor and Delivery.

Truly, in my opinion, there are enough things to actually be upset about....and this isn't one of them.

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Smh

Up Vote Up Vote ×

I am just trying to determine what picky means. Does it mean a GPA above a certain threshold, or what? I'm just trying to understand what that means. I see posts from people who say they have gleaming credentials and can't get a callback. If half of those posts are accurate, then it means that a lot of highly qualified people aren't getting jobs. If the cutoff is, say a 3.75, then what happens to the people who are beneath that level? While I understand their may be a difference between someone who barely got through nursing school and a 3.8, then to my point in my original post, is their really a difference between someone who has a 3.6 and a 3.75?

I'm unhappy about this because I don't understand what the hiring criteria is. I know plenty of good ways to lose out on a job but not how to actually get an RN spot as a new grad.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

There just aren't any hard and fast rules that will ensure someone gets a job. It *is* very frustrating!

It's the unfortunate reality we have to deal with. After venting the frustration, might as well do all you can that might help land a job since to be "in the right place at the right time" you've got to keep putting yourself out there.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Join the Discussion