AI is changing what's in store for new hires and managers alike
AI is screening résumés, prompting some managers to hire fewer entry-level workers and leading others to expect beginners to tackle more advanced work, Northeastern University's AI & Society Survey found. The report is the latest in a series that opened with an analysis of how people across the political spectrum view AI training.
AI is reshaping the hiring process for both employers and job seekers. According to a survey conducted by Northeastern University, 50% of hiring decision-makers noted that AI influenced their hiring decisions, with 26% reducing the number of entry-level candidates they hired. Conversely, 7% of decision-makers reported increasing their entry-level hires, while the rest maintained steady hiring rates but had varying expectations for the performance of entry-level employees.
The survey of 8,174 individuals involved in hiring decisions reveals that AI can streamline the application process, with 83% of companies using AI for resume screening. This has led to a doubling of applications companies receive since 2022. Moreover, job applicants are increasingly utilizing AI tools to increase their reach, while hiring managers are employing AI to sort through the increased volume of applications.
However, experts caution that AI may overlook unique talents and make mistakes, potentially impacting the overall quality of hires. The survey also indicates that a college degree remains valuable, with 38% of decision-makers considering it highly beneficial. AI experience is not a requirement for most job candidates, but those with AI skills are in demand, particularly in tech and finance fields.
Universities are responding by offering AI-related programs and co-op opportunities to equip students with the necessary AI fluency. While hiring managers are optimistic about the potential benefits of AI, they also acknowledge the possibility of AI outsourcing many tasks, which could impact their own employment in the future.
Written by urgent.news from Phys.org's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.