Excessive job application questions

[Geraldgee]

NC as to not be linked back to other threads for those who know me IRL!

I am currently on a FTC and job hunting...have done a few civil service applications which requires essay answers to 3 questions as part of the application process, fine. Not much time taken. However...

Just been applying for a local council job. Have spent ages manually completing my employment history and education history details as no CVS allowed, only to then reach a page in which they are asking for 1000 word responses for each of the 24 items listed in the JD/PS, all separate responses required to fully demonstrate how each singular specification is met.

For context this is a role below management level. AIBU to think that this is absolutely excessive for lower level roles? Frustrating as well knowing the figures around women not applying to roles if they feel they don't meet every single specification.

I understand having to demonstrate you have the skills but 1000 words on 24 topics? Is this the norm now? My current public sector organisation requires a CV and that is it.

Wow that's a lot

Do you mean 1000 words in total?

They surely can't be asking for 1000 x 24 = 24,000.

1000 words or 1000 characters?

@truthfullylying

Do you mean 1000 words in total?

They surely can't be asking for 1000 x 24 = 24,000.

No, 24 separate boxes asking for an 'extensive' explanation of how each is met. I am begrudgingly working through them after the time it's taken to do the employment history!

@LIZS

1000 words or 1000 characters?

Words

That’s ridiculous

It is ridiculous yes. It’s a creep of requirements to protect against claims of discrimination.

Either there has been a typo or you've misread. Contact them before wasting your time, no one is going to read 24,000 words.

Also remember, just because a response allows you to type 1000 words, it doesn't mean you have to. They'd rather have a concise answer that addresses their question, than a load of waffle to write as many words as possible.

As if anyone is going to read through all that when they come to going through the applications.

@CorrBlimeyGG

Also remember, just because a response allows you to type 1000 words, it doesn't mean you have to. They'd rather have a concise answer that addresses their question, than a load of waffle to write as many words as possible.

Definitely, although I still think having to demonstrate extensively how you meet 24 different things is a bit OTT, even without the word count suggestion

I work in resourcing and we shortlist on 5 key criteria from the JD

There's no way they're expecting 1,000 words for each of the 24 questions. That might be the max allowed, but definitely don't fill it. Just evidence each point in the PS with an example, and outcomes.

That's just bonkers. That's an absurd amount of text. They'll die of boredom just reading the forms for shortlisting. By comparison, my 3rd sector employer likes bullet points for that bit, and as brief as possible as you can be and still demonstrate that you have the relevant skills and experience.

I used to work in local government and they are fond of verbosity. I used to blue-pencil great chunks of committee reports. In one LG job, we used to run report-writing training for senior managers and they used to really struggle with the idea that less is more.

I recruit in the civil service, 3 criteria is much shorter than any application I've sifted. The most recent was 12 plus motivational fit up to 500 words per criteria. It's the kind of work you need to be very passionate about so honestly if people can't be bothered to fill in the application they definitely won't like the demands of the role!
Most applications cover similar areas with different terminology, so when you do an application copy and paste the question and your answer onto a word document. You will then be able to tweak for further applications.
The problem with very brief application processes in my experience is that you get do many people just applying for anything and everything, you then waste company time and resources sifting through the dross.

Well on the bright side, you'll probably only be competing against a few people. Most won't have time or energy for that.

I can't imagine how long it would take to read and score.

@JurgensCakeBabyJesus

I recruit in the civil service, 3 criteria is much shorter than any application I've sifted. The most recent was 12 plus motivational fit up to 500 words per criteria. It's the kind of work you need to be very passionate about so honestly if people can't be bothered to fill in the application they definitely won't like the demands of the role! Most applications cover similar areas with different terminology, so when you do an application copy and paste the question and your answer onto a word document. You will then be able to tweak for further applications. The problem with very brief application processes in my experience is that you get do many people just applying for anything and everything, you then waste company time and resources sifting through the dross.

Yes you definitely should be discouraging as many applicants as you can - I mean it’s not as if there are shortages of good employees or anything

In my experience, the more ridiculous the application, the more bureaucratic and micromanaged the work environment. I understand job applications need to filter out suitable candidates, but some of them just seem like pointless busy work. Especially the indeed assessments.

I mean, calling applications ‘dross’ doesn’t make it sound like it would be the nicest place to work.

I think my worry is that it states:

'Simply stating that you have each criteria will not be considered as suitable evidence and may disadvantage you at short-listing stage.'

Which makes me think if you don't have all 24, you shouldn't be applying. It is an officer role, below management. I just find it excessive for that level

I do understand the need to filter out the 'dross' (?) but a lot of people may have tonnes of transferable skills from different roles

We use CV + couple of questions at most. It's all part of equality really. I can't see how a 24 question application plus the tediousness of filling in all employment and education history manually is particularly accessible to all as a first point of applying

I don’t know DD was applying for jobs last summer (around the £25k mark) and most of them seemed to be like this. To make matters worse they often didn’t notify her if she was unsuccessful even after interview.

For the job she ended up getting she had to:-
Send updated cv with covering letter
Completion of application form 6 pages
Informal zoom interview (40 mins)
Complete written project (4 hours)
Present project via zoom interview with more questions (40 mins)
Full interview at workplace (1.5hours)

This was private sector.
We reckon the only reason she got the job was that the other candidates couldn’t be bothered to go through it all

@lapasion

In my experience, the more ridiculous the application, the more bureaucratic and micromanaged the work environment. I understand job applications need to filter out suitable candidates, but some of them just seem like pointless busy work. Especially the indeed assessments.

I mean, calling applications ‘dross’ doesn’t make it sound like it would be the nicest place to work.

^agreed.

You're overthinking this.

Where a descriptor asks for a qualification, you literally state that you do.

For a competency, use the STARR framework. You can give an example in a few hundred words.

For a quality, write a few hundred words ensuring you use the key words you've identified to be relevant.

They're looking for common sense, not War and Peace.

• that you do have the qualification.

@CorrBlimeyGG

You're overthinking this.

Where a descriptor asks for a qualification, you literally state that you do.

For a competency, use the STARR framework. You can give an example in a few hundred words.

For a quality, write a few hundred words ensuring you use the key words you've identified to be relevant.

They're looking for common sense, not War and Peace.

I'm not overthinking it - even giving a 200 word Starr response for 24 questions is almost 5000 words.

None of the questions were re qualifications as this was filled in extensively previously in the application

I am just saying I am shocked all 24 competencies were expected to be met in the initial application for an officer role

Council worker here and agree - our application forms are ridiculous. If you can, try and group similar criteria together and answer them in one chunk. If nothing else you'll show the interviewer just how much useless repetition there is in these forms. Doesn't help anyone! Good luck with your application.

@NuNameNuMe

Council worker here and agree - our application forms are ridiculous. If you can, try and group similar criteria together and answer them in one chunk. If nothing else you'll show the interviewer just how much useless repetition there is in these forms. Doesn't help anyone! Good luck with your application.

Thank you!

Unfortunately each competency has a separate box to answer into, so can't even group them together I have done the application anyways but was a bit WTAF the whole way through!