I agree, we are constantly being pushed to apply to fellowships or positions that the organizations know are already oversubscribed. In practice, the processes for determining the best candidates are not very good, and if only a tenth of people applied for these roles, the best of that sample would not be noticeably better. But this negligible improvement represents ten times as much time wasted by the community on application processes that go nowhere. And even from the perspective of a single applicant, those processes take a very long time. In fact, I just wrote an essay about how those applications could be greatly simplified. The solutions I suggest would not solve the problem (simplifying the application process will encourage more people to apply), but at least the process would be more respectful of applicants’ time.
The ‘hyper-optimisation’ approach that organisations adopt when trying to recruit the ‘best’ talent comes at the cost of a huge waste of time and energy for countless candidates that don’t even stand a chance of getting a job is, according to me, a textbook example of maximisation gone wrong.
What you suggest (limiting the number of application to a given number, say the first 70, and then stopping accepting applications) is in my view a good compromise since, as you say, after a certain point you’re unlikely to get a noticeably better sample. Meanwhile, all the candidates who wouldn’t realistically stand a viable chance just save themselves some time and don’t apply.
I agree, we are constantly being pushed to apply to fellowships or positions that the organizations know are already oversubscribed. In practice, the processes for determining the best candidates are not very good, and if only a tenth of people applied for these roles, the best of that sample would not be noticeably better. But this negligible improvement represents ten times as much time wasted by the community on application processes that go nowhere. And even from the perspective of a single applicant, those processes take a very long time. In fact, I just wrote an essay about how those applications could be greatly simplified. The solutions I suggest would not solve the problem (simplifying the application process will encourage more people to apply), but at least the process would be more respectful of applicants’ time.
THIS.
The ‘hyper-optimisation’ approach that organisations adopt when trying to recruit the ‘best’ talent comes at the cost of a huge waste of time and energy for countless candidates that don’t even stand a chance of getting a job is, according to me, a textbook example of maximisation gone wrong.
What you suggest (limiting the number of application to a given number, say the first 70, and then stopping accepting applications) is in my view a good compromise since, as you say, after a certain point you’re unlikely to get a noticeably better sample. Meanwhile, all the candidates who wouldn’t realistically stand a viable chance just save themselves some time and don’t apply.