See sibling comment.
> Why not use far stronger signals
These all rely on assumptions that an exhibited trait - a well polished resume that is tailored to the job description - have the non-visible traits sought.
Stereotypes work the same way. They're an assumption of someone's internal traits based on an outward trait, and are typically accurate when applied to groups (much as your resume filtering likely is mostly accurate, with a few outliers).
Stereotypes are just typically considered to be negative.
Stereotypes are actually an extremely poor quality signal when hiring. If you use them, you're doing more work than you need to find a qualified person. Test it out and find out for yourself like I did on the advice of someone who does it for a living.
Source? This article says it can be legal. https://www.hiresuccess.com/resources/guide-to-employment-te...
> when you're evaluating hundreds, or thousands, of applications for a single opening, you're going to fall back on stereotypes.
You personally might. But that's not what everyone does, not what the most successful people in recruiting do, and definitely not what I do. Why not use far stronger signals? For example:
1. Do they have the exact skills you are looking for or only some of them? 2. Aside from listing the skills, do they give concrete examples of using those skills? 3. How much experience do they have in their role? 4. Do they have experience in our specific industry? 5. If written communication is part of the job, how well is their resume written?
You can do a quick scan of the above in 10 or 20 seconds.
Thousands of resumes? Scan the first hundred that arrived and skip the rest. For most companies, your job isn't to find the one best person out of thousands of applicants, which would be a huge cost. It's to find someone qualified for the job.
Why use stereotypes when you have much stronger signals already available and it's just as quick to scan for those better signals?