Especially with the rise of “ghost postings” so quantity over quality is greater than ever these days
In biology, the top one is called K-strategy and the bottom one R-strategy.
Both are valid strategies.
But generally, K is better suited for highly developed, intelligent, cooperative and social animals.
R is better suited for animals that live alone in a hostile environment full of predators.
There’s a message about the modern job market in here somewhere I guess.
This sorta applies to the way I typically do it (maybe). I spray-and-pray on 9+ out of 10, because most are mass-posted bullshit. I’m not redoing a cover letter for every bullshit posting.
But if it is clear an actual person is involved (e.g. there is a person’s e-mail listed as a direct point-of-contact or it’s on a small company’s website among only a handful of positions) and/or it is for a job I think I’d really like, I spend more time tailoring everything.
Best of both worlds (potentially).
Yeah, that’s the approach I use too. Eventually I’ll have 2-3 versions of my resume/CV, and a file of typical paragraphs to put in a cover letter. Ideally I’ll have some kind of connection to the company, like: “in a conversation with (Name) at (conference), I learned of your work in (whatever)” or “I am familiar with (product/process) from applying it to my work on (previous work).” Whenever I’m hiring, that sort of cover letter tells me that at least they’ve taken the time to learn about the company, so it’s less likely a waste of time to interview them.
Lol as someone from biomedical sciences I thought you were speaking about applications in the broad field of biology/biological sciences. I was so excited to ask you about what companies would accept an “R strategy” application because fuck this, even for a technical assistant job I need a fucking tailored cover letter every single time because otherwise my application doesn’t even land on anyone’s desk.
This interests me as I recently started reading Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution, by Piotr Kropotkin, and the beginning of the book is all about how “survival of the fittest” does not necessarily mean constant competition. But that species that evolve to cooperate (either intra- or inter-species) tend to do just as well, if not better. I love hearing that the biology actually backs that up.
Evolution is one of the most misunderstood and misrepresented processes in nature.
Here’s some bullet points:
- Humans haven’t evolved “higher” or “more” than earthworms, or roaches, or wheat, or yeast. (All these organisms have evolved for the same amount of time, with a similar number of mutations, but in different environments.)
- Intelligence isn’t the end goal, or indeed a goal at all, of evolution. (Evolution is a process which has no direction, and no goal.)
- Humans aren’t the most successful organism on earth by literally any biological metric. (And “evolutionary success” is a meaningless metric that is only used by humans.)
- “Survival of the fittest” has nothing to do with strength. (It doesn’t mean fitness as in fitness center, but fitness as in “can I fit in this ecological niche?”)
- Pretty much every organism we’ve studied lives in a symbiotic relationship with others. (Humans, from a purely biological standpoint, live in a symbiotic relationship with their gut microbiome, wheat, rice, corn, …, livestock, horses, cats, dogs, honey bees… A symbiosis from a purely biological standpoint means: both species have a better chance to reproduce and spread due to their relationship)
