Does Veterans' Preference really work for us?

If you're talking about USAJobs there are tricks to it.

If there is a survey about your skills you have to put you are an expert at everything or you won't even get through the computer.

If your resume doesn't have the relevant experience for that (and all other positions you are applying for) explicitly listed in your most recent resume HR may not understand it and may not pass you off for the interview list.

Likely there may be someone in mind for that position and unless you are significantly better suited than them it will be tough for you to get selected.

I applied for hundreds of jobs on USAJobs when I got off active duty and I ended up with a hand full of interviews and an offer...that I turned down. The job I ended up taking was based on networking within the organization and finding the right fit. That team hired me on as a Contractor to keep me from taking the government job offer for another organization and I was direct hired into the organization within 6 months.

Networking is worth a thousand cold applications.

Depends on where you are applying to. If your classmates are getting hired, have you asked what their resume looks like? Maybe it's more administrative than Veteran preference. Not sure how many civilian employers have veterans preference, but for federal positions it is point based and depending on your status determines how many additional points you get. Even with veteran points, people without job experience or skills required of the position will not get considered.

I"d take a look at the internship and professional development career ladders out there. If you have a business related type degree, an example would be in the 1102 series. They bring you in at GS-7 and over a period of years, work and school you up to take on more difficult duties. That was our preferred way to grow great Contract Specialists. We could use noncompetitive promotion (ladder) up to GS-12. Other series have similar programs at different agencies. I do recall Commerce used a lot of them but I might be dated at this point. The "points" as a number applies to CS entrance exams for which are only used for a few series. As such, a candidate's resume would be graded highly qualified, qualified, or not qualified at the HR shop. The "Cert" (Certificate of Selection) would list the highly and the qualifieds in a groups with veterans being designated 5/10 after their name. The vet 10s would be higher on the list than the 5s. There are some additional rules in the process, but we'd pick from amongst the highly qualified, typically after an interview. Depending on the hiring plan, the resume/interview weights range from 40/60 to 60/40. There is a "Rule of 3" that essentially said you don't bypass 3 Vets to get to a non Vet. In our SYSCOM, the tendency was to hire MILs into middle jobs or first line supervisor, much to the angst of the non prior service hard worker types that saw their futures limited. Hiring vets is a good thing. Hiring too many vets is a bad thing. Probably the greatest hindrance I've seen to Vets getting on board is poor communication skill, especially writing. There's a lot of urban myth out there, some on this thread. For the most part, it's fairly straightforward. Be prepared to move as there typically isn't move money for most entry positions. Also the HR shops are not the swiftest in correlating the resume to what the people who really know the work need. Half the MIL resumes I saw had something like "Maintained ANSPY-8-C MKII". Nowhere in the announcement were we asking for that. Got a non hiring grievance later with the guy saying in plain english what he could do. Why didn't you put that in your resume? HR types are not mind readers. People also confuse entry and merit promotion. The later is for existing employees in a specific series typically. Vet preference does not exist to merit actions. Finally, check out the various Vet hiring programs through your nearest Vet employment office. There are 24 of them spread around. They'd be vastly more current than I am on this stuff.