Our HR was like this too! They were amazing. They sent a spreadsheet with each applicant in it, greyed out the ones who didn't follow instructions, and bolded the ones that they thought I should read first based on how close their applications were.

I read all of them, even the greyed out ones, until I'd read enough to trust that the HR team's filter was well-calibrated, and I also let the HR team know when they got it right/wrong so they could improve their filtering process.

Overall it worked great but I understand that such functional HR teams are the exception, not the rule.

This sounds like an amazing hiring process. Hopefully it becomes more common.

A CV should not be necessary

Edit: My apologies everyone. I actually read this as "cover letter" instead of CV.

I agree a resume (as noted below) should be required, but CV (academic style) is probably a US term not applicable here.

Sorry!

They could be meaning a resume as used in the US. Outside of the US (or at least in a number of European countries) what is called a resume in the US is referred to as a CV (though my understanding is that it's generally a few pages long, not a single page). Though this comes not from first-hand experience, but a lot of in-depth conversations with friends/coworkers from overseas, so I might be wrong here.

How else can i whittle down 30 applicants to 5 or 6 to invite to interview?

edit: saw another response which said a cv was a resume, this is correct. In the UK we use Curriculum Vitae (CV) instead of resume. They are the same thing. Not sure what you may have thought a CV was, however I would be interested to know.

In the US a CV is a comprehensive list of all previous work in the field, while a resume includes only the most recent/relevant experience. The term is primarily used for academic positions, where it includes a listing of all publications.