Opinion: It is strange that as it becomes more accessible to apply to jobs and internships, it becomes harder to get one.
As we edge closer to winter, darkness begins to seep in: a mixture of a sun no longer entirely committed to showing up, the rain finding its rhythm alongside the clouds which accompany it and the exhausting drudge of job applications. It truly has become part of the college experience.
Josh Nguyen, who graduated from the University of Oregon last year, remembers that gauntlet well. During his senior year, while searching for a job for post-graduation, he filled out “somewhere around 200 to 300 applications.”
“It was grueling, and hard,” he told me, recalling the long nights spent tailoring résumés and submitting application materials to portals that all blurred together. “I sent at least one to five a day – 10 to 30 if I had the energy,” Nguyen said.
When online job applications first appeared, they were heralded as a revolution in access – a way to level geography, timing and connection. Anyone, anywhere, could send a résumé into the digital ether and be seen. Yet, each position now attracts hundreds, sometimes thousands, of hopefuls. The flood of access has drowned the very meritocracy it was meant to create.
Recruiters, buried under the deluge, reached for the good old reliable: referrals. The adage “it’s not what you know, but who you know” continues to hold true. In 2023, an analysis of 4.5 million applications found that referred candidates were 7x more likely to be hired. Nguyen’s story was no exception; he got his current job through a referral.
This isn’t favoritism so much as institutional self-protection. The system can no longer build trust through the application process due to sheer volume, so it must import it from elsewhere.
We’ve all felt the result; that small sting of indignity when the rejection arrives three minutes after you hit submit and you know the only one who saw you was a machine. Worse still is when there’s nothing at all: no reply, no acknowledgment and not even the decency of a no.
So what can we do about it? Maybe not as much as we’d like, but enough to make the process a little fairer, a little kinder and a little less mechanical.
First, referrals shouldn’t be the golden ticket they’ve quietly become. Everyone deserves the chance to be judged on their own merits before connections enter the equation. A better system wouldn’t abolish referrals, but delay them until after the first round of interviews, ensuring that connections confirm quality rather than substitute for it.
We should also be honest about what’s real. “Ghost jobs” are postings created with no intent to hire, but project growth or collect résumés for later, and ought to be banned. They waste time, inflate applicant numbers and erode what little trust remains between applicants and employers.
Finally, a simple but long overdue fix: a feedback mandate. Employers should be required to provide at least automated reasons for rejection, like skills mismatch, position filled or incomplete materials. Those words cost very little and provide dignity to applicants.
As Oregon settles deeper into winter, the sun will become ever less present, the rain will keep falling and students will keep applying. Maybe though, with enough intention, the application process doesn’t have to feel so cold. As application season gets underway, it’s important to remember that behind every résumé is a person still waiting, hoping to be seen.
