Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I don't understand either of your points. Care to spell them out?


1. Resume blasts are infamously ineffective. Not only that, but gap since last job is a screening criteria so basic that even HR can filter from it; if you're bad on that metric you're unlikely even to hit a hiring manager. So it may be less true that 6 months of unemployment is intractable than that 6 months of unemployment forecloses on the tactic of just blasting resumes.

2. Women routinely incur 6-12 month gaps of unemployment because they have kids. When Erin went back to the workforce, the resume gap was by far the biggest obstacle she faced; it was raised specifically in (I think? She'll comment and correct me.) every job interview she had. Point being: if you're disadvantaged as a cohort that early in the process, the impact to your career long term is likely to be far-reaching even after you find employment.


Ironically, having a child is likely the best possible response to have for why you have a year gap in employment. For the all-male resumes used in this experiment, hr and hiring managers would be more likely to assume the gap was due to work-related reasons (lazy, unskilled, unintelligent, etc) as opposed to the socially accepted and positive reason of childbirth.


Is this an analysis the experiment actually did, or your presumption about how hiring managers view time taken off for child care?


The experiment only tested male resumes. So, no, it did not perform this analysis. Personally, I'm not sure what to expect if we changed the gender.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: