Purpose
The purpose of this assignment is to help students build a conceptual model of the application review process. Students will use that model to design application materials that better communicate their qualifications in a meaningful context.
The best professional applications are intentionally designed to communicate evidence that a candidate is qualified for a job, scholarship, graduate program, etc. However, effectively communicating those qualities is not intuitive, especially during the early stages of a career.
Most people believe that they know how to create effective application materials, but that isn’t true. Consider these statistics:
- ~50% of job applications are rejected because they do not meet the minimum qualifications
- ~75% of job applications are rejected within 15 seconds of review
In other words, roughly 1 in 4 applications are from qualified individuals whose application materials are so ineffective that they are rejected as quickly as an applicant that didn’t meet the minimum requirements for the job.
Objectives
Each group will review the application materials of 20 applicants for an imaginary quality control lab manager position at McGuffin Eats, a fake food manufacturer. From those candidates, you will choose three to bring in for an interview. Your goal is to hire the most qualified individuals; however, the most qualified candidates may not write the most effective application materials. For your selections, assume that all the applicants are 100% truthful.
As students review these applications, remind them to pay attention to design elements that help them make quick decisions (positive or negative) and those that make the review more difficult.
Approach
Reading and ranking 20 applications is not a trivial task; however, a logical, methodical screening approach can simplify the process and save you time.
Do not start by completely reviewing each application in detail. Instead, identify criteria that can quickly reduce the number of candidates. For example:
- Did the applicant submit all the required materials (~1 second per application)?
- Yes: Move the application to the next step.
- No: Discard the application. If they weren’t able to follow those instructions, how likely are they to appropriately complete their job duties?
- Does the applicant have the minimum educational requirement (~3 seconds per application)?
- Yes: Move the application to the next step.
- No: Discard the application. The minimum education was included for a reason.
- Not sure: Discard the application. Clear communication is important.
- Does the applicant have relevant experience (~3 seconds per application)?
- Yes: Move the application to the next step.
- No: Discard the application. They aren’t qualified for the position.
- Not sure: Discard the application. If it isn’t included, it doesn’t exist.
Continue with simple, quick screening questions until your pool of candidates is reduced to those that meet all the minimum requirements. Once you have finished eliminating applicants that don’t meet the requirements, you are ready to start ranking the other candidates. For this phase, focus on the strength of the evidence that each applicant provides. For each application, ask yourself these questions:
- What evidence does this candidate provide that demonstrates their qualifications?
- What are this candidate’s strengths?
- How confident am I that this candidate will be successful? Why?
As you review each application, sort them into three categories:
- Qualified and Distinguished: The evidence is clear that these candidates would be successful. They would likely be able to complete their job duties with little-to-no training or direct supervision. These candidates should get your full attention.
- Qualified and Competitive: These applicants are qualified and would likely be successful, but they would require some training and direct supervision. Depending on the number of qualified and distinguished candidates, you may need to revisit these applications.
- Qualified, but not Competitive: These candidates are qualified and might be successful, but the other applicants are obviously better suited. They would need significant training before they would be able to complete their job duties without direct supervision. If groups one and two have plenty of viable candidates, discard this group.