Recently, I posted how Stanford University uncovered that you are not crazy when it comes to the market

Recently, I posted how Stanford University uncovered that you are not crazy when it comes to the market and that algorithmic monoculture is causing candidates to be systematically by vendors and algorithms market at scale through applicant tracking system. Are incredible recruitment and HR leaders who have confirmed that not only is this accurate, are seeing this in real time and are working to resolve this, are far too many recruiters and my comment section trying to disparage myself and other creators, the word about. So let's break down exactly what shaking the nest with data. Make this as transparent as possible. Candidates included. Hi, my name is Beverly Dines. Operating officer who's been scaling operations for over a decade and multiple industries. The first comment I keep from recruiters and HR leader is "Did you even read the study?!" Did she even read the study? I love this one. Because not only read the study, I read it. Downloaded the PDF so I could and on top, I also read the Q&A with researchers who conducted the study. That my audience stays in form, I empowered them on every single platform I posted this. I'll link it again in this one too! With the link in the comment section to. So because it's so deeply research, you exactly what it says. The Stanford Digital Economy Lab found that Kathleen Creel: Algorithmic monoculture occurs when the same algorithm dominates a sector, or in its weaker but more typical form, algorithms made in similar ways using similar data such that they make similar decisions. When the same algorithmic vendors power the majority of hiring platform, they produce similar outcomes across firms independently. Rishi: The World Economic Forum claims more than 90% of employers use automated systems to filter or rank job applications, especially given the growing volume of job applications. According to them, Google received over 3 million applications in 2024 and the Indian government received 220.5 million applications from 2014 to 2022. More than 90% using applicant tracking and they found that the same candidate profile that might get flagged by organization is likely to get flagged by the same underlining model at another company vendor. It's in the study. That this study applied specifically to gamified assessment, not resumes. So this doesn't apply to applicant tracking and you are misrepresenting the data. This is not the gotcha you think it is. And the thousands are experiencing this also don't think so either. Correct that Stanford University conducted this specifically with pymetric, which uses game based assessments, that publicly in every threat it's come. But here is misses. The Stanford researchers themselves explicitly stated, and I quote, Kathleen: We've speculated in past work that if many firms relied on the same AI vendor to screen job applicants, that could prevent some applicants from getting any interviews. But this study was the first time we were able to show this effect in real hiring data. If many firms relied on the same to screen applicants, that could prevent some applicants from getting any interviews. They were talking about the broader pattern of what happens when algorithmic vendors dominate the hiring the World Economic forms; finding than 90% of employers use automated systems to filter applications. The researchers themselves connected these dots. I didn't have and neither have other creators who have started bringing life. Is saying in that this has nothing to do with applicant tracking system, call you in, encourage you to finish reading the study yourself. I will always encourage everyone to do your diligence and research. This platform is for data driven strategies. So comment below if this resonated. Share this with somebody who is search right now. And follow, because this conversation isn't over.