Does anyone have concrete data points on how and what recruiters are paid?
The data point I heard for the finance industry was 25% of base + guaranteed bonus (but not signing bonus or discretionary bonus). I have no idea how the rules change if the employee flakes and quits within X months.
The problem is most recruiters have absolutely no idea how to judge a candidate so they come up with their own heuristics. It's much the same way that an accountant might measure lines of code for productivity. They can only go with what makes sense to them.
In my experience recuiters are used to staff long term positions. If a hiring company is looking to hire someone for a position that will take many months to learn an existing code base it is reasonable to expect that person stay with the company for some multiple of that amount of time.
That said, recruiters should ask potential candidates about their work preference. If the person is open to a long term placement they shouldn't dismiss them based on previous short term engagements. But don't get upset if "Large Corporation A" isn't interested in you because you like to do 3 month freelance projects.
Assuming they could stomach doing it, how much money cold a technical person with good interviewing skills make as a head hunter? Perhaps after a year when they had time to build up a rep as being a good filter?
You would do better as an in-house recruiter at a technical company. That way, you're in more direct contact with hiring managers.
Build your rep there, and go out on your own.
My first real job was working for a recruiter who used to be a programmer. He didn't really need to use his programming knowledge, though, because recruiting means sending candidates who won't make the hiring manager look like an idiot if they don't work out. If your choices are a) brilliant dropout, or b) someone who went to Princeton but is really lazy, your incentive is to send b). If a) works out, you get no direct benefit; if b) doesn't work out, well, who could have predicted that?
Recruiters who come from technical backgrounds are the best ones. One of my good friends has a CS degree and been working as recruiter here in NYC, he's making over 300K/year.
Despite having a CS degree, he's not a typical geek though - very personable, open and extraverted, great social skills. For a recruiter, I'd say that's a #1 skill. If you don't have that, don't even bother, you're gonna hate it.
I did it for 6 months to help pay bills, and I hated it with passion.
Why should recruiters be better than anyone else at hiring? It should be common knowledge by now that there is no way to differentiate great programmers from flakes other than hiring them. Even then, a great programmer in one environment may become a helpless flake in another. It's a _relation_, not an attribute.
Great recruiters would know both ends of the equation, and knowing that, make good calls. I'm actually of the opinion that most technical companies are bad at hiring. The only strategy that can be formalized and generalized is to error on the side of caution, but this can be a problem in the current job market where it's hard to find good people and you can't afford false negatives.
And that`s why you should say you have worked on three well defined projects, with tight schedules and scopes, and were able to deliver the client requirements with awesome quality (insert anecdote about when a customer said you did something incredible).
But now you`re looking for a different type of work (whatever the job description says). That means you have to research the job/company/ask questions before answering the recruiter.
You can`t change an industry. Leave the pragmatism aside when trying to get money and play the game.
I was looking for a job out of my country and through a recruiter I was able to move and get a job with double the salary I had in my hometown.
Three months has passed and due to a stupid policy I don't like I'm switching job again. A second recruiter found me a better position in another company, with a higher salary (which is already quite high).
Sure, most recruiters can get you good money at usually large companies that may or may not actually be a good fit for you. It kind of speaks for itself that you are leaving after a couple months.
I believe the best way to get a job you will love and get paid well to do it, is to aggressively pursue companies that you want to work for. This is really pretty easy nowadays, you find an email for the company and you write a great cover letter and you send it off with your resume. Doesn't matter if they have any openings or not. You should already know the companies products, how they work, contribute to relevant open source, etc.
My experience has been similar.
If you're a work-to-live type, they will get you better perks than you can, hands down, every time.
The "Why" is simple as well: they have far more data than you on what that company is paying for a given skill set, what the position is worth and (most importantly) what the projects you'll be working on are worth to the company.
It depends on the industry. Some industries definitely require a recruiter. You just need to talk to a lot of them until you find a good one; they're not all the same.
Start your own company and do your short-term projects through that company. Then you can say you worked for one company over the past 14 months instead of saying you worked for three.
Recruiters are paid based on salary of the guy and the fact he stays there for a certain period of time.