Several of the writers have chimed in that there should be no difference in how candidates are contacted based upon their education or experience level, but I think that most of us would agree that that CEO candidates are rejected far differently than entry level candidates. Whether that should be the case or not is open for debate, but it seems to me that the way the rejection is handled should largely depend upon the organization's level of involvement with the candidate. If the candidate merely emailed a resume and wasn't even interviewed, then I believe that it is fine for the organization email a rejection. If the candidate interviewed with one person, then a letter (with a stamp -- yes, they still exist!) seems to be in order. But if the candidate went through multiple rounds of interviews, then it seems to me that the candidate's primary contact at the employer should call, leave a message asking for the candidate to call, and then break the news over the phone. If the two sides need to play phone tag a couple of times, so be it.

Candidates who go through multiple rounds of interviews and are then rejected through a simple phone message or email are unlikely to have much respect for the organization and they'll talk about their treatment with all of their friends and family. If the organization wants to be able to recruit the best candidates, it cannot afford to be bad mouthed in the community. Whether the employer's community is a small town or a big city, there are usually very few stars available to it so the employer must do everything that it can to successfully recruit and retain those stars. And sometimes that means treating those who are rejected with some respect.