Using 100 AI Generated, Perfect Match Resumes for 100 Open Jobs

Disclaimer: This scenario is purely hypothetical. Submitting fabricated resumes to employers would be deceptive, unethical, and is not something I encourage or condone.

If a perfect resume can’t get you hired, what chance does an ordinary one have? Imagine this: you create a perfect resume, using AI to tailor it for every job you apply to. Taking it a step further, you change your years of experience to mirror the job description, enhance your tenure, swap out past companies for more prestigious companies, add certifications, awards, and more to make your resume optimal in every measurable way.

Before applying and to validate the fit and the quality of your resume, you run it through a different AI model to assign a match score. Your resume gets evaluated for job title alignment, required skills, years of experience, responsibilities, technology, industry expertise, and more. By every dimension, the resume meets or exceeds the necessary requirements and qualifications to move them forward.

What responses would trickle in? 

Surely you would get interviews for every job you applied to, right? The resume match isn’t subjective, it’s third party verified and enhanced to the most extreme. The best possible resume that could ever join the applicant pool of that specific job posting.

You will not be moved forward for all the roles in which you applied, even with flawless credentials and a perfect match to the job description. Some postings you wouldn’t hear back from at all and they would quietly fade into the background. Others would email you, informing you they moved forward with candidates whose skills were “better suited for the position”.

What should be the rejection rate among 100 open jobs with 100 perfectly matched AI-generated resumes?

What’s going wrong?

Jobseekers should take some reassurance in this thought experiment as it represents failings of the application process in our modern employment market. While they may apply to job postings that appear custom made for them personally, they may never even hear back.

Applicant tracking systems (ATS) are blamed regularly, but they aren’t the culprit. ATS platforms are similar to CRMs used by sales teams, except they manage applicants instead of customers and leads. These systems are not scanning and rejecting resumes for lack of keywords like “evangelize” or “ownership.” I’ve worked inside enough of these tools, including proprietary, home brew systems, to know this isn’t happening behind the scenes.

Keyword stuffing doesn’t work either. Recruiters can find candidates using keyword searches, but if your experience doesn’t align with the role, there’s no amount of AI generated keywords will have an effect. Hint: in fact, excessive keywording can be a red flag in the eyes of recruiters.

The real problem(s)

I believe the problems are twofold. Job descriptions and the application process.

During the mid-1800s, as factories and large companies boomed, employers would post “Help Wanted” signs in order to attract jobseekers to their company. It wasn't until the 1920s that the modern idea of a resume began to appear. Prior to that, any semblance of a resume was an employer requiring applicants to provide letters of interest or information about their work history. (Has anyone seen that episode of 1923 where the man being interviewed for a Sheriff’s Deputy role is offended about being asked about his work history?)

During the emergence of personnel departments (we know them today as HR departments or People Teams), formal application forms started to become common. By the 1960s, job applications had become a standard part of hiring, especially as labor laws expanded.

Eventually, job applications moved online. Popular job boards launched in the 1990s, changing how applicants found and applied for jobs, and by the 2000s, the modern resume became fully digital.

The job application process hasn't changed (much) for 60 years. It still depends on jobseekers providing information about themselves and on the company, accurately interpreting those details to gauge the jobseeker’s capability. As applications soar, companies must stack rank the most likely fit for jobs based on the information provided and move only a select few on to the next step in the process. There are too many spaces for talent to be missed throughout this practice.

There are things that haven't changed in 60 years that still work well today. I remain unconvinced that the job application process is one of them.

Job descriptions continue to be challenging, too. Even with the advent of AI, the task of assembling what exactly makes the perfect employee is burdensome and imprecise. Minimum requirements can be subjective and some job descriptions still ask for a ‘great attitude’ as if you could check that box on an application. How is a candidate supposed to opt in or out of that? 

So what?

I was inspired by a tech founder to consider productizing Recruiting as a Service (RaaS). This is where Vinehire was born. The idea that hiring could be as simple as finding candidates and sharing them with hiring managers. Recruiting as a Service (RaaS) offered as a subscription, on a monthly basis instead of sky high labor costs and agency fees. Post and pray shouldn’t be your talent acquisition strategy, though it is an easy one to rely on, regardless of its results.

Hiring has never been about volume. You don’t need 300 applicants, you need only the right one. Yet the systems we rely on today are optimized for volume, not quality. The solution isn’t more automation. It’s better connection. That’s what Vinehire.com is quietly aiming to deliver. 

About Vinehire

Vinehire delivers on demand recruiting as a service through a flexible subscription model without commission fees, job boards, or mismatched applicants. Learn more at www.vinehire.com.