I applied to OpenPhil in early 2019, but was rejected after multiple trial tasks. I asked for feedback and got a short feedback statement in response (1-2 short paragraphs). While I was a little frustrated at the minimal feedback, the work trials were very well-compensated, and I didn’t ultimately feel like I was being hard-done-by by not getting detailed feedback.
In the end, if the trial task is paid at a reasonable rate, I don’t think it is or should be a requirement for organisations to offer detailed feedback to candidates. “We buy your time for a trial task” seems like a fair deal to me, and in-depth feedback should be considered a nice extra. If costly feedback obligations caused orgs to make changes to their hiring process (e.g. trialling fewer candidates, putting less emphasis on trial tasks, or paying candidates less for their time) I expect I would usually think those changes weren’t worth it.
I applied to OpenPhil in early 2019, but was rejected after multiple trial tasks. I asked for feedback and got a short feedback statement in response (1-2 short paragraphs). While I was a little frustrated at the minimal feedback, the work trials were very well-compensated, and I didn’t ultimately feel like I was being hard-done-by by not getting detailed feedback.
In the end, if the trial task is paid at a reasonable rate, I don’t think it is or should be a requirement for organisations to offer detailed feedback to candidates. “We buy your time for a trial task” seems like a fair deal to me, and in-depth feedback should be considered a nice extra. If costly feedback obligations caused orgs to make changes to their hiring process (e.g. trialling fewer candidates, putting less emphasis on trial tasks, or paying candidates less for their time) I expect I would usually think those changes weren’t worth it.