MINNEAPOLIMEDIA PRESENTS | TALENTTACT™: When AI Writes the Résumé and AI Reads It - Elizabeth Lintelman on the Changing Rules of Finding Work

As employers confront growing volumes of applications and job seekers struggle to reach actual recruiters, Rasmussen University's career services leader explains why technology alone cannot solve the hiring problem, what executive candidates must understand, and how direct human connections are opening doors.

MINNEAPOLIS, MN (October 29, 2026). A qualified job seeker prepares a résumé, submits an application and waits. Days pass without a response. The applicant tries again, perhaps revising the résumé with artificial intelligence, adjusting keywords to match a job description and applying to dozens of additional openings. Still, no interview comes. Somewhere on the other side of that process, an employer may be sorting through hundreds of applications, relying on another automated system to identify the candidates most likely to meet its requirements.

Both sides are using technology intended to make recruitment more efficient. Yet the distance between them can seem greater than ever.

That contradiction was at the center of MinneapoliMedia's October 29 conversation with Elizabeth Lintelman, Senior Director of Career Services at Rasmussen University, for TalentTact™, the publication's interview series examining how talent is discovered, recruited, developed and connected with opportunity.

The discussion came eight days after the Pathways to Possibilities Nationwide Virtual Career Fair, a collaborative recruitment event involving Rasmussen University, American Military University, American Public University and Hondros College of Nursing. The event offered students, graduates and members of the public an opportunity to communicate directly with participating employers.

Lintelman approached the conversation from the perspective of someone whose professional responsibilities involve helping people prepare for employment, understand their qualifications and establish connections with potential employers. She also brought a personal understanding of the uncertainty that accompanies unemployment, having experienced layoffs and unsuccessful job interviews herself.

Her central observation was straightforward: artificial intelligence has made applying for employment more convenient, but convenience has not necessarily improved the likelihood of a meaningful connection.

"I think the biggest difference, from my perspective, is AI has made it easier than ever to apply for jobs and also harder than ever to stand out," Lintelman said.

For employers, the growing accessibility of AI-assisted applications presents questions about how candidates should be evaluated. For applicants, it raises another concern: whether the process of finding employment is becoming increasingly dependent on knowing how to navigate technology rather than demonstrating the abilities required to perform the work.

Neither problem can be solved by the applicant alone.

The Application Process Has Changed. The Human Challenge Has Not.

MinneapoliMedia began by asking Lintelman how artificial intelligence has changed recruitment and employment searches during her years in career development.

She described an environment in which job seekers can accomplish considerably more administrative work in less time. AI tools can help prepare résumés, develop cover letters, organize applications and identify potential opportunities. Some services can even submit applications automatically.

These capabilities can be useful, particularly for people managing a job search alongside employment, education or family responsibilities. But Lintelman sees an important limitation.

"AI has helped job seekers become super efficient in getting those applications in," she explained. "But it's so much harder to be noticed because AI has lowered the barrier for applying, but hasn't necessarily improved the quality of the connection between a candidate and the employer."

The distinction matters because application volume and recruitment effectiveness are not the same measurement.

A person who submits 100 applications has completed 100 transactions. That figure does not establish whether the applicant has reached the appropriate hiring managers, communicated the most relevant qualifications or developed any relationship with the organizations receiving those applications.

For recruiters, the same distinction applies. Receiving a large number of résumés may create a substantial pool of potential candidates, but it does not necessarily make identifying the right person easier.

The consequences extend beyond individual frustration. Employers must decide how much weight to give automated screening, how to recognize qualifications that do not fit conventional career patterns and when a personal conversation is necessary to understand a candidate's potential.

Lintelman did not argue that technology should be abandoned. Her position was that it should support the recruitment process without replacing the professional judgment and personal engagement that effective hiring requires.

How Recruiters Find Talent When Everyone Has a Polished Résumé

The conversation then moved behind the hiring process to examine how recruiters and executive search professionals identify qualified candidates, particularly individuals who may not be actively applying for positions.

MinneapoliMedia asked about the growing role of AI, LinkedIn, professional networks and referrals in identifying potential employees.

Lintelman returned immediately to the value of personal relationships.

"I think what's fascinating is that the job search has become very automated, but the human element becomes even more valuable," she said.

Networking, communication and the ability to demonstrate authentic professional skills remain essential, she explained, even when technology makes it possible to present those skills more efficiently.

Her argument was not that every job seeker must attend conferences, seek out crowded networking events or possess an outgoing personality. Instead, she encouraged a broader understanding of professional relationship-building.

People can establish connections through online discussions, professional groups, LinkedIn interactions and conversations with individuals working in industries they hope to enter.

She used the interview itself as an example.

Although she and MinneapoliMedia's interviewer had not previously met, they connected through LinkedIn and subsequently arranged a professional conversation. That exchange created an opportunity for both parties to learn about one another and potentially develop further professional connections.

"Networking is still the foundation to any career exploration that you want to pursue," Lintelman said.

The point is especially relevant to executive recruitment, where professional reputation, specialized experience and personal recommendations can influence how candidates become known to organizations.

Asked whether AI is changing the traditional executive search process or whether relationships and professional networks still carry the greatest weight, Lintelman emphasized the importance of communicating experience, values and professional capabilities.

She said technology can make someone appear highly qualified on paper. But a candidate eventually must demonstrate that those qualifications reflect actual knowledge and experience.

"When push comes to shove and you're actually having the conversation with the prospective employer, if you can't show up and be your authentic self and speak intelligently about what it is that you bring or about your passions, it doesn't matter how much AI in the world there is," she said.

Her answer offered a career-development perspective rather than a technical account of executive search firms' sourcing methods. The interview did not establish which AI products executive search firms use, how frequently they rely on automated candidate discovery or how those systems compare with traditional referral networks.

Nevertheless, Lintelman's emphasis on professional credibility identified a question relevant across levels of recruitment: how candidates establish a reputation that extends beyond the contents of an application.

One Hundred Applications and Almost No Response

For many people searching for employment, the problem is not a lack of willingness to work. It is the inability to secure an opportunity to demonstrate that willingness.

MinneapoliMedia presented Lintelman with a familiar scenario: a person submits 100 applications and receives only a handful of responses, or none at all.

What happens behind the scenes, and what should that person do differently?

Lintelman explained that some applicants now use automated services capable of submitting large numbers of applications with relatively little ongoing involvement.

Employers, meanwhile, may use AI-assisted screening tools to process incoming résumés.

The result, she suggested, can resemble an automated exchange in which technology is operating on both sides before a meaningful human conversation takes place.

She characterized the situation as "AI versus AI."

The phrase captures the tension without establishing that every employer uses automated screening or that all unsuccessful applications are rejected by algorithms. Hiring practices differ among organizations, and the interview did not include independent data showing how frequently automated systems eliminate qualified candidates.

What Lintelman emphasized was the risk of treating application submission as the entirety of a job search.

A candidate might send hundreds of applications that look and sound similar to those submitted by other applicants using the same tools. The question then becomes how that individual can communicate something distinctive.

Her recommendation was to make outreach more personal.

Rather than submitting an application and waiting indefinitely, a candidate could identify someone at the organization, introduce themselves professionally, explain their relevant experience and express an interest in learning more about the position.

The goal is not to demand preferential treatment or circumvent legitimate hiring requirements. It is to establish a connection that allows a potential employer to understand the person behind the résumé.

"We can't simply sit back, let AI apply to hundreds of jobs and expect to get a position," Lintelman said.

Her advice does not guarantee an interview. Nor does it resolve structural problems in recruitment, including limited vacancies, inconsistent employer communication or screening practices that may disadvantage certain applicants.

It does, however, identify something applicants can influence: the quality of their professional outreach.

The Workers Who Do Not Fit the Conventional Résumé

One of the more consequential questions concerned people whose qualifications may be difficult to communicate through standardized recruitment systems.

MinneapoliMedia asked Lintelman about older workers, immigrants with international experience, career changers and individuals returning to employment after an extended absence.

Such applicants may possess substantial professional knowledge without having the conventional job titles, recent employment histories or domestic credentials that employers expect to see.

The question was whether technology could help these candidates communicate their abilities or whether automated screening might make their circumstances more difficult.

Lintelman cautioned against rejecting AI as a resource.

Rasmussen University, she said, encourages students and graduates to use AI-supported career tools, provided those tools strengthen rather than replace the individual's understanding of their qualifications.

She recommended using technology to identify relevant terminology, communicate transferable skills and explain professional experience more effectively.

But she drew a firm distinction between presenting a career history well and creating a misleading one.

"AI can definitely help you tell your professional story, but you can't let it invent that story," she said.

That distinction has practical consequences.

A candidate who uses AI to describe genuine responsibilities more clearly may improve an employer's understanding of their experience. A candidate who allows a tool to exaggerate accomplishments or invent responsibilities risks being unable to substantiate the information during an interview.

For people changing careers, the challenge can be especially complicated.

A professional who has worked in education, hospitality, public service or business may possess skills relevant to another industry without immediately recognizing how those skills translate.

Lintelman encouraged candidates to understand what they have accomplished, how they have solved problems and what they can contribute to a prospective employer.

She also emphasized confidence in explaining those experiences.

Her answer placed responsibility on applicants to communicate their qualifications effectively. It did not establish whether employers' screening systems adequately recognize unconventional career histories, leaving an important question for further examination: how organizations ensure that their recruitment criteria do not unnecessarily exclude people with relevant experience.

Three Ways to Approach the Job Search Differently

When asked to identify three practical strategies that job seekers could begin using immediately, Lintelman focused on technology, authenticity and networking.

First, she encouraged candidates to use AI as a resource without surrendering control of the application process.

AI can help applicants identify relevant language, organize their experiences and prepare materials. But applicants must remain engaged in reviewing what those systems produce.

Second, she emphasized accuracy.

A résumé or cover letter should represent the candidate's actual qualifications. If an employer asks about an accomplishment listed in an application, the candidate should be able to explain the experience confidently and accurately.

Third, she urged people to invest more deliberately in professional relationships.

For some, that may involve contacting recruiters or participating in industry events. For others, it may mean joining online professional groups, contributing thoughtfully to discussions or communicating with individuals whose careers offer useful insight.

Lintelman was particularly interested in removing the assumption that successful networking requires an extroverted personality.

"You do not have to be an extrovert to network well," she said.

She described opportunities to connect from home through LinkedIn, professional discussions and online communities where individuals can demonstrate knowledge and contribute meaningfully.

The larger message was that professional visibility requires more than repeated application submissions.

Candidates need ways to communicate what they know, establish credibility and build relationships with people who may eventually become colleagues, mentors, recruiters or employers.

For people facing repeated rejection, that advice may require patience. Professional relationships develop over time, and an introduction does not automatically produce employment.

But Lintelman sees those relationships as an important part of career development, whether someone is actively searching for work or simply exploring future possibilities.

Why Four Institutions Came Together for a Nationwide Career Fair

The interview then turned to the October 21 Pathways to Possibilities Nationwide Virtual Career Fair.

The event brought together four educational institutions: Rasmussen University, American Military University, American Public University and Hondros College of Nursing, creating a shared opportunity for participating employers to meet students, graduates and members of the public.

MinneapoliMedia asked what inspired the collaboration and what the institutions hoped to accomplish.

Lintelman's response challenged the assumption that educational institutions should view one another primarily as competitors.

She said students have occasionally questioned why a university would collaborate with other institutions to help people find employment.

Her answer is that cooperation can make participation more attractive to employers by giving them access to a wider range of candidates.

A broader employer presence, in turn, creates more opportunities for attendees.

"I'm a strong believer that we are better together," she said.

The virtual format was also central to her thinking.

Traditional recruitment events often require candidates to travel to a particular campus or location. For individuals living outside major employment centers, working full time or managing family responsibilities, those requirements can limit participation.

Virtual events allow people to explore opportunities beyond their immediate communities and communicate with organizations they might not otherwise encounter.

But Lintelman sees another benefit that is less easily measured.

Exposure to employers in different industries can change how people understand their own career possibilities.

Someone who studied criminal justice, for example, may not initially consider employment in a healthcare organization. Yet organizations across industries need professionals with varied educational backgrounds and transferable skills.

A virtual career fair can introduce participants to those possibilities through direct conversations.

Lintelman also challenged the idea that a person's education necessarily determines a single professional destination.

Careers, she observed, frequently develop through unexpected transitions.

People change industries, discover new interests and pursue opportunities they could not have anticipated when they began their education.

For that reason, she believes career fairs should be understood as opportunities for exploration and relationship-building, not simply events for people who need immediate employment.

The Results: More Than 2,500 Booth Visits and 400 Recruiter Conversations

The October 21 event provided one of the interview's most concrete reporting opportunities.

Asked about participation and outcomes, Lintelman initially explained that the event had attracted approximately the same number of employers as the previous year, although registrations were somewhat lower.

She found that decline noteworthy given the attention surrounding employment opportunities and the economy.

At the same time, she said engagement among attendees remained meaningful, with approximately the same number of chat interactions as the previous year.

Later in the conversation, Lintelman consulted the event's figures and provided a more detailed account.

According to the figures she shared, the event generated more than 2,500 virtual booth visits and more than 400 direct recruiter conversations. Attendees also participated in 33 video calls, submitted more than 200 job applications and scheduled 56 follow-up meetings.

These figures offer a useful picture of the activity generated during the virtual event.

Booth visits indicate engagement with participating employers' virtual spaces. Recruiter conversations show direct exchanges between attendees and employer representatives. Video calls and scheduled follow-up meetings suggest that some interactions progressed beyond initial introductions.

The numbers do not establish how many unique people attended, how many interviews subsequently occurred or how many individuals ultimately secured employment.

Those distinctions matter because recruitment activity is not the same as employment outcomes.

Lintelman acknowledged that employers and institutions often focus on measurable results such as attendance, interviews and placements.

She does not dismiss those measures. But she believes they provide only part of the picture.

For her, the number of conversations and professional relationships established may be equally important, even when their long-term effects are difficult to quantify.

A person who attends a career fair without receiving an immediate job offer may still gain an industry contact, learn about an unfamiliar occupation or establish a relationship that becomes valuable months later.

That possibility is difficult to capture in a conventional event report.

It also raises an important question for institutions investing in career services: how should they evaluate success when meaningful professional connections do not always produce immediate, measurable employment outcomes?

Real Recruiters, Real Conversations

One of the most revealing portions of the interview concerned the structure of the virtual career fair itself.

MinneapoliMedia asked whether participants interacted directly with employers or encountered automated representatives.

Lintelman was explicit: the virtual booths were staffed by people representing participating employers, not AI chatbots.

Attendees could initiate text conversations with recruiters. If those exchanges progressed, they could move into video discussions and potentially arrange subsequent meetings or interviews.

The format provided an alternative to the conventional process of submitting an application and waiting for a response.

Rather than hoping that a résumé would eventually reach someone willing to discuss an opportunity, attendees could communicate with employer representatives during the event.

Lintelman described the value of being able to move directly into a conversation instead of sending a résumé into what she characterized as the uncertain reaches of the internet.

The model does not eliminate competition or guarantee employment. Employers still make their own decisions about qualifications, interviews and hiring.

But it changes the initial encounter.

For candidates, the opportunity to ask questions and explain their experience can provide context that a written application may not fully communicate.

For employers, direct interaction can reveal qualities that are difficult to evaluate through a résumé alone, including communication, professional curiosity and the ability to discuss relevant experience.

The October 21 event therefore offered a practical example of the central argument running through the interview: technology may be most useful when it creates opportunities for human engagement rather than replacing them.

The Employer's Responsibility to Change

Much of the public discussion about modern recruitment concentrates on what applicants must do differently.

They are encouraged to update their résumés, learn new technologies, build professional networks and develop additional skills.

MinneapoliMedia asked Lintelman to consider the other side of that responsibility.

What should employers, recruiters and executive search professionals change to identify capable people who might otherwise be overlooked?

Her response focused on the reluctance of some employers to reconsider traditional recruitment methods.

She explained that Rasmussen University had been organizing virtual career fairs before the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated broader acceptance of remote recruitment.

Despite that experience, she said some employers remain more comfortable with campus-based events.

That preference can create difficulties when the candidates employers hope to reach are enrolled in online programs.

Lintelman explained that Rasmussen has campus-based clinical programs, including nursing and other healthcare-related fields, but also serves students in online programs such as business, early childhood education, criminal justice and information technology.

An employer seeking candidates from those online programs may not reach them effectively by insisting on a physical campus visit.

Her response was to help employers understand how virtual recruitment can provide access to the candidates they want to meet.

The underlying issue is not whether in-person recruiting should disappear. It is whether employers are willing to adapt their methods to the circumstances of the people they hope to hire.

That question extends beyond universities.

An organization that depends entirely on familiar recruitment channels may limit its access to candidates outside its established networks. A company that expects every applicant to fit a conventional career history may fail to recognize transferable experience.

Similarly, an executive search process that relies too narrowly on existing professional circles may miss capable leaders whose careers developed outside those circles.

These broader implications were not presented as findings from an independent investigation of executive search firms. They follow from the recruitment challenges explored during the interview and point toward areas requiring additional reporting.

Lintelman's practical recommendation was that employers should remain open to different ways of connecting with candidates.

For her, virtual recruitment is not a lesser substitute for an in-person meeting. It is another means of making a personal connection possible.

Career Development Should Not Be Reserved for People Who Are Unemployed

Another important insight emerged when Lintelman discussed the purpose of career fairs and professional development programs.

She believes many people make the mistake of treating career exploration as something that begins only when they need a job.

That approach can leave individuals trying to establish professional relationships at precisely the moment they are under the greatest pressure to secure employment.

Lintelman encouraged people to expand their networks and explore possibilities even when they are satisfied with their current positions.

She also discussed professional development sessions offered through Rasmussen University, including monthly programs covering workplace-related topics.

One session scheduled for the day of the interview concerned workplace personality and how individuals interact with colleagues whose working styles differ from their own.

According to Lintelman, these sessions are available to community members at no cost.

Her reasoning reflects a broader commitment to making career-development information accessible beyond the university's enrolled students and graduates.

Professional knowledge, she believes, should not be restricted to people who already possess institutional connections.

The university's approach to career development also extends into employer-supported education. According to Rasmussen University's published information, more than 300 employers participate in corporate alliances that can provide eligible employees with tuition savings of up to 20% on qualifying programs. A separate Professional Achievement Grant, when combined with applicable employer benefits, may cover up to 100% of qualifying program costs for eligible employees.

These arrangements introduce another dimension to the conversation about workforce development. Finding the right candidate is one responsibility of employers. Creating opportunities for existing employees to strengthen their qualifications, pursue advancement or transition into different professional roles is another.

For workers whose careers have taken unexpected turns, access to additional education can offer a pathway toward new opportunities. For employers, educational partnerships can form part of a broader approach to developing and retaining talent.

Although these specific tuition programs were not discussed during the TalentTact™ interview, they provide institutional context for Lintelman's broader argument that professional development should not begin and end with an immediate job search.

Readers interested in eligibility requirements and participating employers can consult Rasmussen University's Employer Benefits information. Tuition savings and grant coverage depend on applicable program requirements and eligibility conditions.

Lintelman also expressed interest in continuing the nationwide virtual career fair in 2027, although she acknowledged that changes in technology may influence how future events are organized.

The interview did not establish a confirmed date or format for the next event.

What emerged clearly was her intention to continue exploring ways to expand access to employers and professional development resources.

The Personal Experience Behind Her Advice

Near the end of the conversation, MinneapoliMedia asked Lintelman what she would say to someone who had spent months searching for employment, receiving repeated rejections or no responses, and beginning to lose confidence.

Her answer moved away from recruitment systems and institutional programming.

She spoke instead about her own experiences.

Lintelman said she has been laid off, faced uncertainty about her professional direction and participated in interviews that did not result in job offers.

Those experiences inform the encouragement she gives students, graduates, friends and family members confronting similar difficulties.

She understands that rejection can be discouraging, particularly when someone has invested considerable effort in preparing for an opportunity.

But she urged people not to interpret an unsuccessful application as the final judgment on their professional worth or future prospects.

Her advice was simple.

"You're one no closer to a yes."

She repeated the encouragement, emphasizing that setbacks should not automatically bring a job search to an end.

"Don't give up. Don't give up. Don't give up."

There is an important distinction between encouragement and certainty. No career counselor can guarantee when an individual will receive an offer, and persistence alone cannot overcome every obstacle in the labor market.

But Lintelman's message was grounded in her experience of professional uncertainty and the belief that people should continue pursuing opportunities even when the process becomes difficult.

Her broader recommendations suggest that persistence should also be accompanied by adjustment: reconsidering application strategies, communicating qualifications more effectively and expanding professional relationships.

The objective is not simply to submit another application. It is to improve the possibility that the next opportunity will lead to a meaningful conversation.

A Career Does Not Have to Follow a Straight Line

The interview concluded with an invitation that reflected the broader purpose of TalentTact™.

MinneapoliMedia asked Lintelman whether she could recommend another professional whose experience in recruitment, human resources, executive search or career development might contribute to a future conversation.

Her response returned to a theme she had raised earlier: professional lives rarely develop along a single predictable path.

She described the importance of helping students understand that a degree or early career decision does not necessarily determine the direction of an entire working life.

People may begin in one field, develop new interests, acquire different skills and eventually establish careers that bear little resemblance to their original plans.

Lintelman encouraged individuals to consider what motivates them, which abilities they possess and how those strengths might translate into different professional settings.

As an example, she subsequently recommended Laura Nilles, a professional whose career transitions she believed could contribute to a meaningful future conversation. In a follow-up LinkedIn message, Lintelman said she had contacted Nilles about the possibility of receiving an invitation from MinneapoliMedia.

The recommendation offered an appropriate conclusion to an interview that repeatedly challenged conventional assumptions about employment.

A person's career is not necessarily a straight progression from education to entry-level work, management and retirement.

It may involve interruptions, unexpected opportunities, changes in personal circumstances and decisions to pursue entirely different professional interests.

For people searching for employment, that reality can be difficult to recognize when automated applications encourage them to define themselves through a narrow set of titles and keywords.

For employers, it raises the question of whether their recruitment practices are sufficiently flexible to recognize the abilities people acquire through unconventional paths.

The Hiring Question That Technology Cannot Answer Alone

The October 29 TalentTact™ conversation with Elizabeth Lintelman did not produce a universal solution to the challenges facing recruiters and job seekers.

It did, however, expose an important limitation in the assumption that greater technological efficiency necessarily produces better recruitment.

AI can help candidates prepare applications and help employers process information. It can make certain administrative tasks faster and reduce the time required to organize a search.

But none of those capabilities, by themselves, establishes whether an employer has found the best-qualified candidate or whether a capable applicant has received a fair opportunity to demonstrate their abilities.

Lintelman's emphasis on networking and personal communication offers one response to that limitation.

Her experience with the October 21 career fair provides a practical example. The event generated more than 2,500 booth visits, more than 400 recruiter conversations, 33 video calls and 56 scheduled follow-up meetings, according to the figures she shared.

Those interactions do not establish how many people ultimately found employment. They do demonstrate that a virtual recruitment platform can create opportunities for direct contact between applicants and employers.

That is a meaningful distinction in a labor market where many applicants experience the hiring process primarily through online forms and automated responses.

The responsibility for improving recruitment cannot rest exclusively with job seekers. Employers must also consider whether their practices make qualified candidates easier or harder to identify, whether their recruitment channels reach the people they intend to hire and whether technology is supporting or narrowing professional judgment.

For individuals navigating the process, Lintelman's advice was to use available tools without allowing those tools to define their professional identity. Candidates should understand their qualifications, communicate their experiences accurately and continue developing relationships that may lead to opportunities.

The challenge for both sides is to recognize that an application is a means of introduction, not a complete representation of a person.

A résumé may document employment history, education and accomplishments. An automated system may help organize that information. But understanding how someone thinks, solves problems, works with others and contributes to an organization often requires something more.

It requires a conversation.

And in an employment market increasingly shaped by artificial intelligence, creating more opportunities for those conversations may be among the most consequential changes employers and job seekers can make.

MinneapoliMedia's TalentTact™ explores talent acquisition, recruitment, career development, executive search and the evolving relationship between employers and the people they seek to hire. This feature is based on an October 29, 2026, interview with Elizabeth Lintelman, Senior Director of Career Services at Rasmussen University. Event figures and professional assessments are attributed to Lintelman. Information about employer education benefits comes from Rasmussen University's published program descriptions.

❤️ SUPPORT MINNEAPOLIMEDIA

---

STAY CONNECTED TO MINNEAPOLIMEDIA

Local stories matter. Subscribe free to MinneapoliMedia and receive independent news, community reporting and important updates from Minneapolis, the North Metro and communities across Minnesota.

SUBSCRIBE FREE: https://minneapolimedia.town.news/subscribe

MinneapoliMedia | Community. Culture. Civic Life