Wouldn't it be great if we had to pay job application fees?

Many readers likely think that the title of this post is sarcastic. Some of their thoughts:

• Job Seekers: "I don't want to pay all those application fees."
• Hiring Managers: "I would not get as many applications."
• Everyone: "You're nuts!"

I agree that all of these statements are quite true.

Job seekers wouldn't want to pay the fees, so they would only apply to a few jobs. Smart job seekers would focus on a few companies that they really respect and eliminate applications to jobs that they aren't qualified for. Now each applicant only applies to 3 companies instead of 30! Although job seekers wouldn't enjoy forking over money with their applications, time is money, and this plan would save the time normally spent on writing cover letters for jobs the applicants don't want.

It would appear alarming when instead of 300 resumes per day, hiring managers only receive 30. However, as explained above, these 30 resumes would all be from qualified candidates that really want the job. Hiring managers would then save time sifting through irrelevant and sloppy resumes from applicants that don't even care about their companies. As a qualified and enthusiastic job seeker, now my resume has a shot at getting looked at!

To address the third hairy bullet, I am a little nuts. Charging job application fees seems crazy at first, but upon closer inspection, it's a viable, time-saving, win-win strategy. The next time somebody comes up with an idea that seems crazy at first, look at the idea's merits before you shoot it down.

What's your type?

When asked this question, most people will either respond with their blood type (AB+), shrug mysteriously, or (most commonly) rattle off a generalized list of characteristics that describe the group of people they have either dated or been interested in. For example, if Cedric had dated several individuals that were all tall, rebellious, and cunning, some would say that this was his "type."

Have you ever heard someone vocally disapprove of a relationship (one that they heard about on Facebook of course) because one dating partner didn't match the other's "type?" For example, if Cedric liked a short girl, one might say, "I can't believe he's dating her, she is so not his type." Perhaps you've even used this generalized list of characteristics as an excuse not to date someone, claiming, for example, "He's so not my type, I usually like rebellious guys."

Since the characteristics of the people you have liked comprise your "type," I would thus argue that when you like someone that isn't your type, their characteristics become a part of your "type." For example, when Cedric likes the short girl, he'll have to find another characteristic besides tall that describes all of the women he's been with. Instead of tall, rebellious, and cunning, his new type may be funny, rebellious and cunning. When you date someone that isn't your "type," they then become your type. Thus, the argument "I can't date him because he's not my type" doesn't really work.

Since "types" can't be used as an excuse not to date someone, what are they good for? Well, they can be used as an excuse to date someone. In order to develop a "type," we look at one's previous failed romantic interests. For example, one characteristic that all of Cedric's failed romantic partner's share is "rebellious." Dating rebellious girls obviously hasn't worked for him, so maybe he ought to reevaluate serially dating rebellious girls. All along it has been implied that we should date someone that matches our "type," (shares characteristics with people we have had failed relationships with in the past) when in fact we ought to try not to date our "type" since those failed relationships, well, failed.