A 1-in-50 hire rate is absolutely shocking regardless of the company size, industry, etc. Whoever is responsible for prescreening these applicants prior to being interviewed simply isn't doing their job.
Not really, no. I've found resumes to be terribly poor indicators of hiring suitability, and so I end up conducting brief first-round phone screens with most at-least-slightly-suitable candidates.
This correlates well with the article here, as it turns out that resumes were more useful as a writing sample assessment than a work experience assessment to this company.
To be honest, I misinterpreted the ratio. I wasn't aware that the 50 included people who were phone screened. Fortunately the ratio makes a lot more sense in that context.
