Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have applied for hundreds of jobs over the past 6 years through USA Jobs.
It took me 9 months to get my foot in the door (accepted a temporary position as a 9- position NTE two years).
Applied for and received a permanent position 1.5 years later (same group).
Applied for and received a promotion (to a 14) 2.5 years later- different group and I knew no one there.

ALL of these positions were through USA Jobs (although I did have a heads up on the perm position since I was a temp employee already). There was at least one vet on the cert.

In all of the HUNDREDS of applications I put in - I only received one call. ONE. It only takes one. You never know what that one might be.

Seems like rather a poor return on time invested.

My verdict is, and remains, if you're a vet or a recent college grad, it's ok. I might adopt 11:18's position but put my real (much stronger) resume along with a cut and paste of the posting. Heh.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I recently applied for a job I was very highly qualified for, and had inside connections.

There were 300+ applicants, 100 of whom apparently rated themselves as a 5/5 on every single qualification in the multiple choice questionnaire, basically saying they regularly supervised others doing tasks that were ridiculously diverse and very obscure. Even the hiring manager thought it was pretty unlikely such people existed in such quantities, especially considering it was a mid-level position. Of those, HR reviewers (who had little understanding of what would actually make a good candidate for the particular position) sent a handful of the 100 perfect scoring resumes to the agency. My resume didn't even make the 100 cut, since, while I was generous with the questionnaire, I didn't blatantly lie. So yeah, I think the process is a bit of a joke.

I haven't applied for a fed job in awhile, but isn't there some disclaimer about consequences for being caught lying on those questionnaires? Is that all BS?

I helped my sister apply to jobs for new grads. 75% of the questions were specific to the government. Things such as "supervised others on the government tracking system" or years of experience with government equipment. Insane. How do they expect 22 year olds to have supervised people before? Obviously HR idiots make the questions. My sister was wanted by the agency hiring also so she was exactly what they were looking for.

Take the age out of it, some people have not been in a supervisory role for a variety of reasons. Some organizations don't believe in creating a career ladder.

The times I have applied, I have been honest on the multiple choice portion as well. I think that USA Jobs uses some program to find keywords that rarely exist for most people. That is pure laziness. Not everything can be explained on a resume, especially when a resume is supposed to be 2 pages at most.

Anonymous wrote:I have applied for hundreds of jobs over the past 6 years through USA Jobs.
It took me 9 months to get my foot in the door (accepted a temporary position as a 9- position NTE two years).
Applied for and received a permanent position 1.5 years later (same group).
Applied for and received a promotion (to a 14) 2.5 years later- different group and I knew no one there.

ALL of these positions were through USA Jobs (although I did have a heads up on the perm position since I was a temp employee already). There was at least one vet on the cert.

In all of the HUNDREDS of applications I put in - I only received one call. ONE. It only takes one. You never know what that one might be.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I recently applied for a job I was very highly qualified for, and had inside connections.

There were 300+ applicants, 100 of whom apparently rated themselves as a 5/5 on every single qualification in the multiple choice questionnaire, basically saying they regularly supervised others doing tasks that were ridiculously diverse and very obscure. Even the hiring manager thought it was pretty unlikely such people existed in such quantities, especially considering it was a mid-level position. Of those, HR reviewers (who had little understanding of what would actually make a good candidate for the particular position) sent a handful of the 100 perfect scoring resumes to the agency. My resume didn't even make the 100 cut, since, while I was generous with the questionnaire, I didn't blatantly lie. So yeah, I think the process is a bit of a joke.

I haven't applied for a fed job in awhile, but isn't there some disclaimer about consequences for being caught lying on those questionnaires? Is that all BS?

I helped my sister apply to jobs for new grads. 75% of the questions were specific to the government. Things such as "supervised others on the government tracking system" or years of experience with government equipment. Insane. How do they expect 22 year olds to have supervised people before? Obviously HR idiots make the questions. My sister was wanted by the agency hiring also so she was exactly what they were looking for.

Take the age out of it, some people have not been in a supervisory role for a variety of reasons. Some organizations don't believe in creating a career ladder.

The times I have applied, I have been honest on the multiple choice portion as well. I think that USA Jobs uses some program to find keywords that rarely exist for most people. That is pure laziness. Not everything can be explained on a resume, especially when a resume is supposed to be 2 pages at most.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I recently applied for a job I was very highly qualified for, and had inside connections.

There were 300+ applicants, 100 of whom apparently rated themselves as a 5/5 on every single qualification in the multiple choice questionnaire, basically saying they regularly supervised others doing tasks that were ridiculously diverse and very obscure. Even the hiring manager thought it was pretty unlikely such people existed in such quantities, especially considering it was a mid-level position. Of those, HR reviewers (who had little understanding of what would actually make a good candidate for the particular position) sent a handful of the 100 perfect scoring resumes to the agency. My resume didn't even make the 100 cut, since, while I was generous with the questionnaire, I didn't blatantly lie. So yeah, I think the process is a bit of a joke.

I haven't applied for a fed job in awhile, but isn't there some disclaimer about consequences for being caught lying on those questionnaires? Is that all BS?

I helped my sister apply to jobs for new grads. 75% of the questions were specific to the government. Things such as "supervised others on the government tracking system" or years of experience with government equipment. Insane. How do they expect 22 year olds to have supervised people before? Obviously HR idiots make the questions. My sister was wanted by the agency hiring also so she was exactly what they were looking for.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I recently applied for a job I was very highly qualified for, and had inside connections.

There were 300+ applicants, 100 of whom apparently rated themselves as a 5/5 on every single qualification in the multiple choice questionnaire, basically saying they regularly supervised others doing tasks that were ridiculously diverse and very obscure. Even the hiring manager thought it was pretty unlikely such people existed in such quantities, especially considering it was a mid-level position. Of those, HR reviewers (who had little understanding of what would actually make a good candidate for the particular position) sent a handful of the 100 perfect scoring resumes to the agency. My resume didnt even make the 100 cut, since, while I was generous with the questionnaire, I didn't blatantly lie. So yeah, I think the process is a bit of a joke.

I haven't applied for a fed job in awhile, but isn't there some disclaimer about consequences for being caught lying on those questionnaires? Is that all BS?

Anonymous wrote:I recently applied for a job I was very highly qualified for, and had inside connections.

There were 300+ applicants, 100 of whom apparently rated themselves as a 5/5 on every single qualification in the multiple choice questionnaire, basically saying they regularly supervised others doing tasks that were ridiculously diverse and very obscure. Even the hiring manager thought it was pretty unlikely such people existed in such quantities, especially considering it was a mid-level position. Of those, HR reviewers (who had little understanding of what would actually make a good candidate for the particular position) sent a handful of the 100 perfect scoring resumes to the agency. My resume didnt even make the 100 cut, since, while I was generous with the questionnaire, I didn't blatantly lie. So yeah, I think the process is a bit of a joke.

Applying through USAjobs without internal networking is equivalent to applying to a F500 company online without networking; the application goes in a blackhole.

Everyone complains about USAjobs without recognizing the process is no different than applying to Apple online. You are competing with hundreds of other qualified candidates and maybe 2-5 applicants will get through without networking.

Just like the real world, a majority of jobs are filled via networks not through random online databases.

People like to blame the preferences when they don't make it, but it is really just luck if you don't network. I view it similar to applying to Harvard grad school; so many people applying it is just luck that you make it in because an admissions officer liked your app over a similarly qualified person.