The writer claims to "rely heavily on data," but the punchline of the article is purely anecdotal that 1 person at 1 company got hired, was good and would have been overlooked. I am sure there were also many candidates with good resumes who were now overlooked.
This article starts out with an air of science and ends with a completely unproven conclusion.
While I do agree in my gut that resumes are not an amazing filter, she has completely failed to present evidence that her alternative interview process is better.
And in fact, while KeepSafe still has the no resumes option open, they are now accepting resumes again -- I do not great confidence that the alternative system was anything more than a PR move by the company.
Shortly after she says she's come to "rely heavily on data", she says "This post, however, is going to be a bit of a departure. Rather than making broad, sweeping conclusions based on a lot of data points, I’m going to narrow in on one story that happened".
I think she did a great job of doing exactly what she set out to do, and since this is just one anecdote, any qualitative or numerical data she presents won't be worth much, all the more reason to omit it and just share the story.
This article starts out with an air of science and ends with a completely unproven conclusion.
While I do agree in my gut that resumes are not an amazing filter, she has completely failed to present evidence that her alternative interview process is better.
And in fact, while KeepSafe still has the no resumes option open, they are now accepting resumes again -- I do not great confidence that the alternative system was anything more than a PR move by the company.