Employers risk overlooking talented young candidates as AI makes job applications increasingly difficult to distinguish, warns Charles Hipps, Founder and CEO of recruitment technology company Oleeo, whose technology supports hiring for more than 400 organisations.
With nearly one million young people in the UK not in education, employment or training (NEET), Charles argues that employers must ensure their recruitment processes identify genuine skills and potential, rather than rewarding applicants simply for how polished their responses appear.
Research from the Institute of Student Employers (ISE) found that participating employers received an average of 141 applications per graduate vacancy and 96 per apprenticeship vacancy[1] during the 2025/26 recruitment cycle.
Meanwhile, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) estimates that 981,000 young people aged 16 to 24 were NEET[2] between April and June 2026, equivalent to 13% of the age group and an increase of 30,000 compared with the same period in 2025.
The ISE research also found that 92% of surveyed student employers reported suspected or confirmed recruitment misconduct[1], compared with 85% in 2025 and 78% in 2024. Unauthorised AI use during interviews and online assessments was among the most common concerns.
With 77% of surveyed employers reviewing or redesigning their recruitment processes[1], Charles believes businesses face a fundamental question: are they identifying the most capable candidates, or simply those who are best at presenting themselves using AI?
Recruitment expert warns employers not to lose sight of genuine ability
Charles Hipps explains: “Employers are facing two challenges at once. They’re receiving huge numbers of applications, while also trying to establish whether the information they’re seeing genuinely reflects what a candidate can do.”
“It’s understandable that businesses are concerned about applicants using AI in ways that misrepresent their skills. But if the response is simply to introduce more checks to catch AI use, we risk overlooking the bigger issue.”
“The purpose of recruitment is to identify people with the skills and potential to succeed. Employers need to make sure their assessments are still doing that.”
The ISE reports[1] that employers are introducing measures including more personalised questions, time limits and randomised assessments in response to recruitment misconduct. However, Charles argues that identifying unauthorised AI use is only part of the challenge.
Oleeo has seen this shift first-hand through its work with Police Scotland. According to Oleeo, the force has moved away from initially treating candidate AI use as misconduct towards establishing clearer guidelines on how applicants can use the technology appropriately. This includes recognising AI as a tool for research and preparation, while maintaining expectations that candidates demonstrate their own skills and abilities.
For Charles, this demonstrates why employers need to look beyond detecting AI use and consider whether their recruitment processes provide meaningful evidence of candidates’ capabilities.
When AI makes every application look impressive, how do employers identify talent?
AI can help candidates improve their CVs and prepare for interviews, but there’s a difference between presenting genuine skills more effectively and using technology to demonstrate abilities they don’t actually have.
As AI makes it easier to produce highly polished applications and assessment responses, employers face the additional challenge of understanding what genuinely distinguishes one applicant from another.
Charles says: “Two candidates might have very similar skills, but one could produce a far more polished application because they’re confident using AI. That doesn’t automatically make them better suited to the job.”
“One of the challenges recruiters are now facing is the sheer volume of applications that look and sound almost identical. When candidates use similar AI tools and prompts, employers can end up with hundreds of polished responses that reveal very little about the person behind them.”
“That makes it harder to distinguish genuine skills, experience and potential. A well-written application is no longer necessarily a reliable indicator of how someone thinks, solves problems or approaches their work.”
“Equally, we shouldn’t assume that someone using AI to improve their CV is being dishonest. The challenge is making sure candidates have opportunities to demonstrate their own abilities, rather than simply judging how impressive their written responses appear.”
Some employers are already rethinking how they assess candidates. In a pilot involving 1,100 applicants*, Sopra Steria worked with Oleeo to test AI-assisted, skills-based screening against three standardised behavioural criteria. The results showed 90% agreement between AI-assisted recommendations and human screeners on pass/fail outcomes, with applications assessed in an average of 5.2 minutes, compared with an existing allocation of 22.5 minutes per application.
The pilot demonstrates how technology can help recruiters evaluate applications more efficiently against consistent criteria, while retaining human involvement in assessment decisions.
Five ways employers can rethink candidate assessments
Rather than simply introducing more restrictions around AI use, Charles believes employers should reconsider how they evaluate applicants and whether their assessments genuinely reflect the skills required for the role. He recommends five approaches:
- Make expectations around AI clear.
“Employers should explain when AI assistance is permitted during applications and assessments, and when candidates are expected to demonstrate their abilities independently. This helps establish consistent expectations without treating every use of AI as misconduct.” - Assess both technical and transferable skills.
“Rather than relying solely on CVs and written applications, employers should evaluate candidates against the specific requirements of a role alongside behavioural capabilities such as communication, decision-making and problem-solving. Structured, evidence-based assessments can help recruiters identify genuine strengths beyond polished application language.” - Give candidates opportunities to demonstrate their thinking.
“Practical tasks, structured interviews and appropriately designed on-demand video assessments can provide insight into how candidates approach real-world challenges. Follow-up questions can help establish their reasoning and understanding, rather than simply judging the quality of a prepared response.” - Recognise the difference between AI assistance and misrepresentation.
“Using AI to improve a CV is not the same as secretly relying on it during an assessment where independent work is required. Employers should distinguish between legitimate support and conduct that breaches clearly communicated rules.” - Keep human judgement central to recruitment.
“Technology can help recruiters manage large application volumes and evaluate evidence consistently, but employers must remain accountable for ensuring assessments are relevant, fair and appropriately reviewed.”
Charles adds: “AI is changing how people apply for jobs, but it shouldn’t change the fundamental purpose of recruitment.”
“If employers want to understand what candidates can actually do, they need to give them opportunities to demonstrate their abilities, rather than relying on how impressive an application looks.”
“Technology should help recruiters make better-informed decisions, not replace the judgement needed to recognise genuine talent.”
Could the response to AI create more barriers for young jobseekers?
Charles also warns that employers need to consider the unintended consequences of introducing more complicated recruitment assessments.
With competition for graduate and apprenticeship opportunities already intense, additional assessment stages or restrictions could create unnecessary barriers if they do not provide meaningful evidence of a candidate’s suitability.
He explains: “Young people entering the workforce often have limited professional experience to draw on, which makes it particularly important that recruitment processes recognise transferable skills, potential and the ability to learn.”
“If employers respond to AI by making recruitment more complicated without questioning what their assessments actually measure, they could end up creating additional obstacles for capable candidates.”
“As the Government considers how to improve employment opportunities for young people, employers also have a responsibility to make sure their recruitment processes recognise genuine ability.”
“The answer isn’t to assume every applicant using AI is being dishonest. It’s to make sure recruitment is still measuring what matters.”
“Ultimately, hiring should reward what someone can contribute, not how effectively they’ve learned to navigate an application process.”
https://www.oleeo.com/solutions/skills-based-hiring/