Recruiter reveals why IT CVs look the same today: 'Out of 30 resumes, maybe four or five felt....'

A hiring professional recently shared his growing disappointment with the quality of applications submitted by entry-level tech candidates, shedding light on a worrying pattern in today’s recruitment landscape. Posting on the Developers India subreddit, he described how his team had opened a position for a product development intern and received around thirty applications. Most applicants were fresh graduates, while a few had minimal work experience of one or two years.

Over the weekend, he dedicated time to carefully reviewing each resume. However, midway through the stack, he began to feel mentally drained—not because the candidates lacked potential, but because their resumes felt indistinguishable from one another. As he progressed, it became increasingly evident that many of these documents seemed to follow an identical template, likely generated or heavily influenced by AI tools.

He observed that numerous resumes were filled with polished yet generic phrases that lacked authenticity or relevance to the applicants’ actual experience. Statements about driving innovation or delivering impactful business results appeared repeatedly, even though many candidates had only recently completed their education. This mismatch between language and reality made the profiles feel exaggerated and disconnected.


What frustrated him further was the absence of concrete details about the candidates’ work. While most resumes listed an array of programming languages, frameworks, and tools, they failed to explain how those technologies had been applied in real projects. The repetition of the same technical skills across nearly every application made it impossible to distinguish one candidate from another.

Another major gap he identified was the lack of honesty about challenges. None of the applicants spoke about obstacles they faced during their learning or development journey. According to him, discussing struggles, failed attempts, and problem-solving efforts would have made the resumes far more compelling and believable. Instead, every candidate appeared overly confident and uniformly skilled, which reduced credibility.

Out of all the applications, only a handful stood out as genuine. "Out of 30 resumes, maybe 4 or 5 felt like a real human wrote them.." he said. These were not necessarily the most qualified candidates, but their resumes reflected individuality, clarity, and a glimpse into their thought processes. Those were the applicants he chose to move forward with in the hiring process.

He concluded by reflecting on the already difficult job market for fresh graduates. While artificial intelligence is often blamed for replacing jobs, he argued that its subtler impact—standardizing applications to the point of sameness—is equally damaging. When every candidate appears identical on paper, it becomes harder for recruiters to identify true potential, ultimately disadvantaging everyone involved.

In response, other users pointed out that automated screening systems often force candidates to optimize resumes with specific keywords, encouraging this uniformity. Others argued that recruiters and companies themselves have contributed to this trend by promoting formulaic resume formats focused on metrics and buzzwords. As a result, candidates are simply adapting to survive in a highly competitive and automated hiring ecosystem.