
简历投出去如同石沉大海,这种徒劳感从未如此强烈。
仅今年2月,雇主就裁减了9.2万个岗位。去年7月,初级职位的失业率达到13.3%,创下37年来最糟水平。三分之二的企业暂停招聘,以观望AI填补岗位空缺的潜力;与此同时,自去年以来已有117万个工作岗位被裁撤。
于是,你和大多数人一样:开始用AI写一封求职信,稍微“美化”一下大三的实习经历。这也无可厚非,毕竟四分之三的简历根本不会被人类看到。这意味着,你正在用AI生成内容,而它最终也只会被AI读取——仿佛形成了一种荒诞的“衔尾蛇”式的自我循环,即便是让苏格拉底之类的哲学家来解释,恐怕也会大费周章。
但在宾夕法尼亚大学沃顿商学院商业经济学教授贾德·凯斯勒看来,其实有一个更简单的替代方案:放弃那些“虚假的热情”,直接拿起电话联系雇主。这位著有《设计你的幸运:用隐秘经济学达成目标》(Lucky by Design: The Hidden Economics You Need to Get More of What You Want)的教授认为,求职信这一传统做法,已经走到了尽头。
凯斯勒对《财富》杂志表示:“我预计在不久的将来,求职信将会消失。要么公司继续要求提交求职信,而所有人都用AI炮制出优秀的范本,最终却被忽视;要么雇主意识到求职信毫无参考价值,且没有人会阅读,从而索性取消这一环节。”
凯斯勒认为,求职过程正逐渐回归“传统模式”:关键在于人脉。他论点的核心是“隐性市场”的概念,即在分配稀缺资源时,不能简单依靠出价高低来决定归属的体系。比如,泰勒·斯威夫特的演唱会门票定价为99美元,但有数百万粉丝愿意支付10倍价格;或者一所大学有5万名申请者,却只提供2,000个新生名额。在这些情况下,无法依靠价格来决定归属,于是其他规则开始发挥作用——例如,你认识一位能带你进后台的工作人员,或者有校友为你背书。这些都属于隐性市场中的“信号”。
而劳动力市场正是规模最大的隐性市场之一。
凯斯勒表示:“我们希望分配稀缺资源,但又不愿意仅仅由价格驱动。我们发现,通过筛选过程来找到最适合该岗位的人,效率更高。”
在这种机制下,像求职信这样的“信号”曾经非常重要,因为它意味着求职者愿意投入时间和精力,来表达自己的热情与诚意。
凯斯勒表示:“求职信曾经是求职者发出的成本较高的信号,用来表明其对某个岗位确实感兴趣。其成本在于写一封高质量的求职信极度耗时费力,而且你不可能为每家公司都准备一封。”这种信号很难被忽视:毕竟,如果候选人写了求职信,说明其态度是认真的。
AI的自我吞噬循环
当AI能信手拈来三段辞藻华丽却空洞的文字来“伪造热情”时,一切都发生了改变。
凯斯勒表示:“生成式AI的出现,让原本需要花几个小时才能写好的东西,现在只需几秒钟,最多几分钟就能完成。于是曾经的高成本信号,一下子变得非常廉价。经济学上称之为‘廉价言辞’:你可以毫不费力地表现出对这家公司的强烈向往,仿佛这个岗位就是为你量身打造的,但这种信号的生成成本极低。”
研究也证实了这一观点。凯斯勒提到由经济学家崔静怡(音译)、加布里埃尔·迪亚斯和贾斯汀·叶开展的一项研究。该研究追踪了某大型招聘平台引入AI求职信助手后的影响:求职信的质量因为精准度提升而有所改善,而更精准的求职信带来了更多面试机会。但凯斯勒表示,随着该工具的普及,“雇主开始不再依赖求职信来做招聘决策。求职信变得更好了,但整体上反而变得没那么有用了。”
他表示:“过去只有少数求职信出类拔萃,这是识别最匹配候选人的方式。而现在,几乎所有求职信都达到了某种标准门槛,它们不再是加分项,而只是入门条件。”
当每份申请看起来都足够精致时,便意味着没有哪一份能脱颖而出。理性的雇主要么把筛选工作交给AI,要么干脆不再阅读求职信。凯斯勒表示:“这时候,你就会把这件事交给AI来处理。”
凯斯勒在自己的招聘过程中也亲眼见证了这一趋势。他笑着说道,尽管过去15年来,他一直在沃顿商学院挑选研究助理,“但质量最高的求职信都集中出现在过去12个月里”,而且这些求职信突然都开始提到他的研究论文。
凯斯勒表示:“我曾经会根据哪些人引用我的论文来判断谁真正有兴趣,但如今每个人都会这么做。我猜并非所有人都真的读过那些论文,而是大家都发现AI能精准总结我的研究内容,并把它自然地融入自荐叙述中。这就意味着,我无法再通过求职信,来准确识别谁是真正渴望与我共事的人。”
相比之下,凯斯勒如今更看重其他“隐性市场信号”:“他们有没有选修我的课程?有没有来参加答疑?有没有尝试当面见我?这些才是我更依赖的信号,因为求职信已经不够用了。”
回归“咖啡社交”
凯斯勒表示,求职信已走向终结,随之而来的是求职信号重新回归传统方式:主动联系与经典的人脉拓展。
他表示:“求职者如果想主动发出‘我真的很想加入这家公司’这类信号,未来需要更多依赖在那些无法被AI复制的行为。”
他补充道:“比如与公司管理层成员进行线下交流,请在公司工作的人喝咖啡,参加公司组织的咖啡社交活动等。这些都是真正有成本的信号,因为它们无法被AI替代。当我选择花时间去和某家公司的人交流时,我就无法把这些时间用在其他公司身上。”
凯斯勒指出,咖啡社交并非新鲜事,但如今重新强调面对面交流与其他信号,意味着求职信的终结几乎不可避免。
凯斯勒表示:“我常说,求职信的时代已经过去了,是AI杀死了求职信。”(财富中文网)
译者:刘进龙
审校:汪皓
简历投出去如同石沉大海,这种徒劳感从未如此强烈。
仅今年2月,雇主就裁减了9.2万个岗位。去年7月,初级职位的失业率达到13.3%,创下37年来最糟水平。三分之二的企业暂停招聘,以观望AI填补岗位空缺的潜力;与此同时,自去年以来已有117万个工作岗位被裁撤。
于是,你和大多数人一样:开始用AI写一封求职信,稍微“美化”一下大三的实习经历。这也无可厚非,毕竟四分之三的简历根本不会被人类看到。这意味着,你正在用AI生成内容,而它最终也只会被AI读取——仿佛形成了一种荒诞的“衔尾蛇”式的自我循环,即便是让苏格拉底之类的哲学家来解释,恐怕也会大费周章。
但在宾夕法尼亚大学沃顿商学院商业经济学教授贾德·凯斯勒看来,其实有一个更简单的替代方案:放弃那些“虚假的热情”,直接拿起电话联系雇主。这位著有《设计你的幸运:用隐秘经济学达成目标》(Lucky by Design: The Hidden Economics You Need to Get More of What You Want)的教授认为,求职信这一传统做法,已经走到了尽头。
凯斯勒对《财富》杂志表示:“我预计在不久的将来,求职信将会消失。要么公司继续要求提交求职信,而所有人都用AI炮制出优秀的范本,最终却被忽视;要么雇主意识到求职信毫无参考价值,且没有人会阅读,从而索性取消这一环节。”
凯斯勒认为,求职过程正逐渐回归“传统模式”:关键在于人脉。他论点的核心是“隐性市场”的概念,即在分配稀缺资源时,不能简单依靠出价高低来决定归属的体系。比如,泰勒·斯威夫特的演唱会门票定价为99美元,但有数百万粉丝愿意支付10倍价格;或者一所大学有5万名申请者,却只提供2,000个新生名额。在这些情况下,无法依靠价格来决定归属,于是其他规则开始发挥作用——例如,你认识一位能带你进后台的工作人员,或者有校友为你背书。这些都属于隐性市场中的“信号”。
而劳动力市场正是规模最大的隐性市场之一。
凯斯勒表示:“我们希望分配稀缺资源,但又不愿意仅仅由价格驱动。我们发现,通过筛选过程来找到最适合该岗位的人,效率更高。”
在这种机制下,像求职信这样的“信号”曾经非常重要,因为它意味着求职者愿意投入时间和精力,来表达自己的热情与诚意。
凯斯勒表示:“求职信曾经是求职者发出的成本较高的信号,用来表明其对某个岗位确实感兴趣。其成本在于写一封高质量的求职信极度耗时费力,而且你不可能为每家公司都准备一封。”这种信号很难被忽视:毕竟,如果候选人写了求职信,说明其态度是认真的。
AI的自我吞噬循环
当AI能信手拈来三段辞藻华丽却空洞的文字来“伪造热情”时,一切都发生了改变。
凯斯勒表示:“生成式AI的出现,让原本需要花几个小时才能写好的东西,现在只需几秒钟,最多几分钟就能完成。于是曾经的高成本信号,一下子变得非常廉价。经济学上称之为‘廉价言辞’:你可以毫不费力地表现出对这家公司的强烈向往,仿佛这个岗位就是为你量身打造的,但这种信号的生成成本极低。”
研究也证实了这一观点。凯斯勒提到由经济学家崔静怡(音译)、加布里埃尔·迪亚斯和贾斯汀·叶开展的一项研究。该研究追踪了某大型招聘平台引入AI求职信助手后的影响:求职信的质量因为精准度提升而有所改善,而更精准的求职信带来了更多面试机会。但凯斯勒表示,随着该工具的普及,“雇主开始不再依赖求职信来做招聘决策。求职信变得更好了,但整体上反而变得没那么有用了。”
他表示:“过去只有少数求职信出类拔萃,这是识别最匹配候选人的方式。而现在,几乎所有求职信都达到了某种标准门槛,它们不再是加分项,而只是入门条件。”
当每份申请看起来都足够精致时,便意味着没有哪一份能脱颖而出。理性的雇主要么把筛选工作交给AI,要么干脆不再阅读求职信。凯斯勒表示:“这时候,你就会把这件事交给AI来处理。”
凯斯勒在自己的招聘过程中也亲眼见证了这一趋势。他笑着说道,尽管过去15年来,他一直在沃顿商学院挑选研究助理,“但质量最高的求职信都集中出现在过去12个月里”,而且这些求职信突然都开始提到他的研究论文。
凯斯勒表示:“我曾经会根据哪些人引用我的论文来判断谁真正有兴趣,但如今每个人都会这么做。我猜并非所有人都真的读过那些论文,而是大家都发现AI能精准总结我的研究内容,并把它自然地融入自荐叙述中。这就意味着,我无法再通过求职信,来准确识别谁是真正渴望与我共事的人。”
相比之下,凯斯勒如今更看重其他“隐性市场信号”:“他们有没有选修我的课程?有没有来参加答疑?有没有尝试当面见我?这些才是我更依赖的信号,因为求职信已经不够用了。”
回归“咖啡社交”
凯斯勒表示,求职信已走向终结,随之而来的是求职信号重新回归传统方式:主动联系与经典的人脉拓展。
他表示:“求职者如果想主动发出‘我真的很想加入这家公司’这类信号,未来需要更多依赖在那些无法被AI复制的行为。”
他补充道:“比如与公司管理层成员进行线下交流,请在公司工作的人喝咖啡,参加公司组织的咖啡社交活动等。这些都是真正有成本的信号,因为它们无法被AI替代。当我选择花时间去和某家公司的人交流时,我就无法把这些时间用在其他公司身上。”
凯斯勒指出,咖啡社交并非新鲜事,但如今重新强调面对面交流与其他信号,意味着求职信的终结几乎不可避免。
凯斯勒表示:“我常说,求职信的时代已经过去了,是AI杀死了求职信。”(财富中文网)
译者:刘进龙
审校:汪皓
Sending your resume into the void has never felt more useless.
Employers cut 92,000 jobs in February alone. Unemployment among entry-level employees peaked last July at 13.3%, the worst entry-level market in 37 years. Two-thirds of companies have put hiring on pause while they wait to see where AI can fill the gaps, and in the meantime, 1.17 million jobs have been cut since last year.
So you do what everyone does: You turn to AI to write a cover letter that slightly exaggerates the role you held in your junior year of college. That’s totally fine, since three-quarters of resumes never reach a human’s eyes anyway. This means you’re using AI to write something that gets read by AI, fulfilling some twisted ouroboros that Socrates and the lot would have had a doozy explaining to their students.
For Wharton Business Economics Professor Judd Kessler, there’s a simple alternative: Toss the fake enthusiasm and pick up the phone. The University of Pennsylvania professor and author of Lucky by Design: The Hidden Economics You Need to Get More of What You Want instead thinks the cover letter’s days are numbered.
“I expect that in the not too distant future, cover letters are gone,” Kessler told Fortune. “Either cover letters will be required and everybody will have AI write good ones and they’ll be ignored, or employers will stop asking for them because they realize they’re not looking at them and they’re not adding value.”
Kessler says job hunting is starting to look a lot like the good ol’ days: It’s all about who you know. At the heart of his argument is the concept of a hidden market: any system that has to allocate something valuable without simply letting the highest bidder win. Think of Taylor Swift pricing concert tickets at $99 when millions of fans would pay 10 times that, or a university with 50,000 applicants for 2,000 freshman seats. Price alone can’t decide who gets what, so other rules take over—rules like knowing a roadie who can get you behind the stage, or having an alumni vouch for you. These are all signals in a hidden market.
And the labor market is one of the biggest hidden markets of all.
“We want to allocate scarce resources, and we don’t want to let price do the job on its own,” Kessler said. “We find it more efficient to have a search process where we identify the best person for the role.”
In this dynamic, signals like the cover letter used to matter, because it meant candidates were spending the time and making the effort to show their enthusiasm.
“It was a costly signal that a job candidate could send that they were really interested in a particular role,” Kessler said. “And it was costly because writing a good one was hard and took time, and you couldn’t do it for every firm.” The signal was hard to ignore: This candidate was serious; after all, they wrote a cover letter.
The AI ouroboros
That all changed when AI made it a quick snap to fake enthusiasm in three frivolous paragraphs.
“Generative AI comes, and something that used to take a few hours to do well now takes a few seconds, or maybe a few minutes,” Kessler said. “And all of a sudden that signal that used to be costly is now very cheap. Economists would call it cheap talk: You can make it look like you are really motivated to join that firm, that the job was designed for you, but you can create that signal very cheaply.”
The research backs him up. Kessler pointed to a study by economists Jingyi Cui, Gabriel Dias, and Justin Ye that tracked what happened when a major job platform introduced an AI cover-letter writing assistant. Letter quality improved because they were better targeted, and well-targeted letters led to more interviews. But as the tool spread, “employers stopped relying on cover letters in their hiring decisions,” Kessler said. “The cover letters got better, and they became a less useful tool overall.”
“In the old days, there used to be a few good cover letters, and that was how you could identify the best-fit candidates,” he said. “Now, all the cover letters pass some threshold. They become a prerequisite rather than a differentiator.”
Once every application looks polished, none stand out—and the rational employer either outsources the reading to AI or stops reading altogether. “That’s when you would hand it off to AI to be responsible,” Kessler said.
Kessler has watched it happen in his own hiring. Despite selecting research assistants at Wharton for the last 15 years, “all of the best cover letters have come in the last 12 months,” he said with a laugh, all of which suddenly reference his research papers.
“That used to be a way that I could tell who was actually motivated,” he said. “But now everybody does that, and my guess is it’s not because everybody has read that research. Everybody has figured out that AI can write a good summary of what I work on and weave that into a narrative. And that means I can’t use the cover letter as a good indication that somebody’s motivated to work with me.”
Instead of relying on an AI-written CliffNotes summary of his own research, Kessler now points to other hidden market signals: “Do they take my course? Do they come to office hours? Do they try to meet with me in person? Those are the signals I start to rely on more, because the cover letter is insufficient.”
A return to the coffee chat
The cover letter is dead, Kessler says and as a result, the signals are going old school: reaching out and classic networking.
“For the specific signal of ‘I really want to work at this firm,’ which is a signal that the applicant themselves can send, it’s going to be more things that cannot be replicated with AI,” he said.
“It’s going to be doing in-person networking with members of the leadership team at the firm, taking people that work at the firm out to coffee, going to the coffee chat that the firm has. And those are real costly signals, because they can’t be replicated with AI,” he added. “When I choose to go talk to people at a firm, I’m using hours that I can’t spend talking to people at another firm.”
While the coffee chat isn’t new, Kessler said the return to meeting people and showing other signals spells the cover letter’s inevitable end.
“I often describe this as the age of the cover letter being over,” Kessler said. “AI killed the cover letter.”