Natalie provides one possible answer here.But it might also be intentional. Depending on the company and their hiring philosophy, they might believe that the first test of quality is a test of interestu2014and itu2019s the one that youu2019re choosing not to perform. Some recruiters (and hiring managers) believe that applicants should demonstrate interest, dedication, effort, and timeu2014and that only interested, invested candidates should be considered for their openings. Those are the best (or perhaps the cheapest, or easiest to recruit, anywayu2026).Thereu2019s some logic to that, I supposeu2014but it kind of takes the u201crecruitu201d out of u201cRecruiters.u201dAnother reason is that companies (and recruiters) love, love, love information. Knowing where you live, how much you earn, how much youu2019ve earned, where youu2019ve workedu2014not to mention the additional questions that the US government requires us to ask you (which are separate from your application, mind you)u2014all of these pryour recruiter with some selection criteria, and fodder for their decision. Applicant Tracking Systems (ATS) often donu2019t seem to spend much time thinking about candidates and the experience you have to suffer through when applying.Companies also (many times) believe that they have the power in this transactionu2014and that youu2019re desperate for a job, so they can make you jump through hoops. Itu2019s sadu2014but itu2019s a very prevalent sentiment that theyu2019re doing you a favor (though theyu2019d probably never admit it that directly).Youu2019re right, thoughu2014people who are highly skilled, busy, and selective may not take the time to fill out these lengthy applications, and the companies ARE losing out on those candidates. If everyone followed your lead, theyu2019ll eventually figure it out, and come aroundu2026.