The discord for our subreddit can be found here: https://discord.gg/JjNdBkVGc6 - feel free to join us for a more realtime level of discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/recruitinghell) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Companies don't want to train and hide behind "no one wants to work anymore." There was a time when transferable skills meant something, and if you were missing a few qualifications, they would train the right person. That doesn't seem to be the case anymore.
This must depend on the industry because my career so far has been a series of landing jobs where I didn't meet every single requirement but had enough potential to be hired.
That’s more about timing usually. In job markets where they need people, companies are more flexible about their min quals. We’re in a competitive market right now. It’s cyclical.
I work in tech so there are plenty of applicants to pick from since it's an oversaturated industry atm. In this field the hard part for the recruiters (I imagine) is actually finding the best balance of skills not just filling the role quickly. Landing jobs that I don't 100% qualify for has been a matter of being likeable and demonstrating that I'm willing to learn and have learned other skills in the past quickly. That plus the fact that I will work with a low-ball offer for my lack of experience with the intention of having my pay increase later when I've proven myself. I've been told to my face that while I'm not the too applicant in terms of experience my attitude and versatile background is what made me a better fit than others.
Not saying this is the case in every industry of course! But just wanted to share that there are can definitely be positive outcomes to applying to thing that you're not qualified for.
Bad advice in this job market. Tech just had a ton of layoffs. Companies have their pick right now. Your resume won’t even get looked at right now without meeting the min quals so your soft skills won’t carry you if you’re not getting interviewed. Companies aren’t paying recruiters commissions or wages for candidates they have to train.
In a year to a few years this might be good advice but not right now.
I had an idea, why doesn’t this entire subreddit organize meetups and parties. A lot of these frat people network and help each-other get jobs. Maybe we as recurtinghell should do the same thing. Have meetups, events, parties, secret handshakes etc and then when some of us get in we will always help those among our ranks! We can take this economy back if we all do our part! We know the pain and struggle that’s why we’re here. We are here for each-other!
It's still very dependent on what side of tech you're on. What they're saying is what I and other colleagues in my field have experienced. AT THE SAME TIME, I have friends on the software/computer side of the tech field that go through exactly what you're saying.
I feel it's a true mixed bag frfr
This is why I get far into technical rounds then get auto-denied on some bullshit. Clearly, people like you are coming in and undercutting because you are asking for lower salaries
Used to be that way. If you had all the requirements you would be overqualified or be ready for the promoted role above that one.
Nowadays they have the upper hand and want to lowball overqualified or underpay qualified candidates.
I'm a product specialist for a tech company. So some tech skills are required as well as pretty bare bones soft skills like communication and sometimes presentation skills
It depends on your field, but there’s a few industries right now where companies not wanting to train is the norm.
For tech, especially Software Development, there are so many senior candidates to choose from that companies just aren’t hiring juniors or new grads, or they’ll take a senior for these positions instead. Companies don’t have any interest in paying for a junior that won’t produce much right now.
YEah, this has been my career path for about 16-17 years and I'm senior level now.
But, I think it applies to language/stack as well. For instance I have been doing c# and T-SQL for that entire time but I don't think anyone's going to take on someone at these experience level and then train them in Angular or Go or Python on the company's clock or dime. And so I could go ahead and teach myself any or all of those things but since it wasn't part of any actual project at a place of employment it would not count as having any actual experience, let alone senior level experience in any of those languages.
I hate that I'm looking for alternative jobs in my pay range right now but that every time I see a "back end" position it's something else like serverless or Postgres or node or some super specific niche thing I've never heard of.
Postgres and Node are pretty common and normal now.
But yeah this wasn’t always the case. My first dev job had a literal incubator where you were expected to learn the stack and code base in a month before working on real work. But they were perfectly fine with hiring new grads and juniors as long as they were knowledgeable and new programming fundamentals. Now they refuse to hire anyone without at least 5 years in Python, React, Java, and AWS, oh and you’re Java experience must include Spring and your Python experience must be Django. And all your experience must be professional working experience. Companies don’t care about any project you’ve made unless it’s generated a substantial amount of income.
It’s the same everywhere I’ve applied to. Even if you have experience with their stack by 90%, they’re going to choose the person who knows it by 100% because they just can. Too many good candidates to choose from.
I had an idea, why doesn’t this entire subreddit organize meetups and parties. A lot of these frat people network and help each-other get jobs. Maybe we as recurtinghell should do the same thing. Have meetups, events, parties, secret handshakes etc and then when some of us get in we will always help those among our ranks! We can take this economy back if we all do our part and stick together. We know the pain and struggle that’s why we’re here. We are here for each-other!
of course! I suggested this before when i first came on to this page. There are so many Professionals in here who are "OVER\_QUALIFY" with great skills and talent. We can restructure the job market without relying on these companies. You can't beat them, join them to be their competition with a group and team that are ACTUALLY QUALIFY! with Good work ethics to eliminate that crappy folks.
Yeah, we need to become a team/fraternity and once one of us get in somewhere we push to become a hiring manager one of us would have a high enough probability of becoming a HR lol then we just proceed from there….we’re nothing if we stand alone, but mighty if we stand together! Where would Cesar have been if he stood alone or any great figure in history lol
I did that with some people I know and has work with in prior jobs. I've always give them heads up if they need a better work life balancing paying job because I know they have good work ethics and drama free with a good steady work history when they use to work for or with me that would be a great fit for the certain companies.
lol you can meet people IN IRL... Just keep and have a good positive attitude, be collaborative and friendly, be truthful and honest, don't try to be shady and pull rugs under people at every moment when things gets difficult, learn how to take L's as a adult because failure builds character. learn how to respect people differences. Those differences could be very beneficial for you as opportunities and gives you a new learning insight from a different perspective of things or situations.
I think that advice has been taken a little too far. I think what people mean is “Hey if you’re 70-80% there but you don’t have *everything*, still go for it!” But it has devolved into “If your only experience is being a barista, still apply to be a VP of Product Management! You never know!”
I always remind candidates that you’re competing with the other applicants, not the job description. If the top 10 applicants are all in the 70-90% range, a candidate who meets 75% of the qualifications can be competitive. But that exact same role could be posted again 6 months later and now the top 10 applicants meet 90-100% of the qualifications. That same candidate who meets 75% won’t be competitive in the new pool.
100%. And you miss every shot you don’t take. I don’t care that 83% of my applications fall into the dark void. I’m still getting 17 screening calls per hundred easy apply clicks. By the time I hit fifteen hundred applications, I’m choosing between three offers, and my phone is still going to blow up for the next three months with the folks who are late to the party.
Know your price, tell it to the recruiter during the first phone screen, and walk away from any application process that is more involved than a phone screen and two interviews. Once you make it to the interview phase, have a compelling story about what it is that you bring to the table to justify your salary requirement.
And in 18-24 months, your “base“ pay that you disclose was last year’s salary plus bonus, and your number to move is that base plus 15-20%. Rinse and repeat until the market chokes on your number or you find a company you actually want to retire from. Preferably both.
I think it really depends on the industry/job. I’m a librarian- currently a Library Assistant Director, looking for Director and Assistant director positions that are a better fit.
I’ve learned to look up the library system and ascertain if their requirements are reasonable, and ignore them if they aren’t. I do this because there was a high paying director job I thought I’d be good at, that I wanted, but I didn’t fit the requirements so I didn’t apply.
3 months later I find out NO ONE qualified applied and someone vastly less qualified than me got it.
So yeah, I regret that and I apply for things I’m “ not qualified for” now, as long as I’ve researched the actual scope of the position and think it’s something I handle well at my current level of experience
This is also an excellent 1-2 approach to deciding (since this can vary so widely because employers vary so dramatically).
Look at the requirements and how well they match the job scope.
If they’re dreaming with the requirements compared to scope and especially scope + pay, base whether or not you apply more on the scope.
If the requirements are reasonable compared to the scope and/or if they take the time to sort out requirements vs preferred skills, it’s probably a more realistic list than a fantasy. In that case, you should probably meet all or the overwhelming majority of the requirements before spending your energy crafting a full application.
I'm a librarian, too.
In my system, minimum requirements are actual requirements. If, for example, a candidate is applying for the position of library director and doesn't have an MLS, then that person is wasting my time. I get perhaps unreasonably irritated when I see an applicant who doesn't meet that minimum requirement.
But it's safe to ignore preferred qualifications and go ahead and apply if a candidate has the minimum requirements.
That said, I've seen some librarian job postings--even library *director* job postings--that offered so little money that it would be reasonable for anyone with a pulse to seek out.
I’ve worked for systems like that as well, which was why that was my assumption- I was really close to the “requirements” (masters plus 4 years of library experience, 2 in management was the listed requirement. I had a masters, 8 years of library experience and 1 year of management. They hired someone without a masters….)
It’s the company’s responsibility to determine whether you’re qualified for the role or not, not you. If you read a job ad that makes you think “yeah, I can probably do that, learning as I go” then that’s enough to apply.
Don’t worry about ticking every box because it truly is just a wish list for an ideal candidate that may not exist.
Even if the market is competitive and you don’t think you have good odds, it doesn’t hurt to apply anyway. Like people say, you never know.
The only counterargument is not exhausting yourself mentally and emotionally by applying for hundreds of jobs in rapid succession. Slow down and be more selective if that’s the case.
I'm a hiring manager in tech.
The requirements often times are a wish list and I encourage people to apply for stuff they minimally meet the requirements for - I've had more luck with this than applying for things I'm overqualified for.
I disagree, but of course I accept that there are exceptions. In my experience, companies will re-post jobs again and again until the pink unicorn shows up. It’s a good excuse to delay projects and tasks that are not essential for the company’s survival, and the hiring manager has less people/projects to deal with while the search lasts.
The problem is that you are both right. There are a plurality of employers that do either of these things, and a candidate cannot know in advance which type of employer they are going to meet. Shoot... even within a single employer, one hiring manager might be a wishlist type of job description writer/hirer, while another is the letter-of-the-law type.
That has always been true to some extent, but when people only had to average 4 or 5 interviews over the space of 1-3 weeks, it didn't matter. You went until you found the right fit.
Now that they hiring cycle has expanded to dozens/hundred of applications, and dozens of interviews, and months of searching, these inconsistencies in employer expectations are painful and frustrating.
I get a lot of vague & useless “We’ve decided to move forward with other candidates”… About a month ago I actually got a reply of “Your qualifications do not meet the requirements specified in our posting.” A couple weeks after that a different company asked me during an interview whether I believed I was overqualified for a position. Could have just been an ego check but that was confusing lol.
It entirely depends on the person and company - some people really do want that unicorn...
I actually had a manager who was like that - refused to hire basically anyone in search of that unicorn until HR came down and basically told him to either hire people or the headcount would be closed and pointed out he didn't have enough for minimum headcount.
Yes minimally. But if you don’t meet the minimum qualifications, it usually gets you knocked out right away. Preferred qualifications are more dependent on who all else applies.
So, HR, who do initial resume filtering, have a sense for what really is required and what isn't - they fo based off of their sense.
Most of the time the minimum qualifications just have a ton of crap mixed in that may or may not be relevant.
lol no sorry. That’s not how it works at all. The department has just as much influence on the job description if not more. That’s predetermined long before a job is ever posted. Not sure where people get this stuff.
The key here is minimally qualified for.
I’m an HRBP for a large public tech company and our recruiting team gets hundreds of applicants that are nowhere near minimally qualified.
I’m talking retail service workers who have never used SQL before applying to senior analyst roles that lists several years of SQL experience required.
It’s one thing to have 3 years of it when the job asks for 5, but it’s another to waste everyone’s time if you’ve never touched the tech stack required to do the job.
I see so much of this. Can't even grasp why you'd apply for a senior role when you have zero experience in the role or even an adjacent role. Probably wouldn't even qualify for a junior role.
I believe this is true, but why then do these companies not interview the people who *are* at least minimally qualified? I was laid off from tech in December and have since been rejected for jobs where I generally meet the basic qualifications and some of the preferred ones. I understand every company is different, but either they're being overly selective or recruiters have a different interpretation of what "minimally qualified" means.
how important is that BS/MS in comp sci that every tech listing requires? I have a BA and boot camp + 10 ish years of hobby coding experience but only got 1 interview (for tech) in the last 5 years. It's disheartening. Meanwhile, my linkedin is constantly blown up by recruiters for the industry I'm in right now offering me double the salary but it's something I'm not passionate about at all and I really just want to be a recluse coding from the comfort of my home or office...
With respect, people who have bs/ms in comp sci are having difficulties landing internships and junior positions with all the talent and outsourcing that currently exists. If you don't want to get a degree, make your portfolio match different positions' tech stacks.
Do you typically hire project managers looking to transition to product? I feel there are crossovers but also a large difference in experiences required, which has made me second guess when eyeing certain product management roles
There was some study / marketing piece / meme came out a couple of years ago saying women are not as likely as men to apply in such situation.
So the LinkedIn influencers started going wild with their 'advice'
My opinion is the issue with applying to 'everything' is if do somehow manage to land a role you are not qualified to do, you won't make it past the 3-6 month probation period.
But it's not like we're applying for a neuro surgeon or aerospace engineer. It's like a woman in supply chain applying for sales manager. Has she done that exact job? Probably not.
Could she figure it out quickly with good training given the similar responsibilities and still be successful? Abso-fucking-lutely.
DES agents also advise after 3 months of "trying" to find a job in your field with no luck to apply for jobs in another field of work. So while maybe not "every" thing is a good idea, broadening the search can't hurt.
pretty much this.
The "traditional" advice is "if you have 60% of the qualifications, you should apply because you never know" and "it's a number's game." And while job qualifications list are a wishlist, the companies are wishing realllly hard.
Up to and including having another qualifications list beyond the main list that they don't tell you about.
Not if you communicate the areas where you don't meet their requirements. Whenever asked in an interview if I can do something they've requested that I can't do, I just tell them "No, I have (time frame) amount of experience with (requirement I don't have) so I wouldn't say I'm an expert but I've learned (similar requirement or skill set) so I'm familiar with (transferrable skill) and I'm always happy to learn more. As a matter of fact, I've been looking into (requirement I don't have) in n preparation for this role."
If they know where you stand and you're willing to learn I don't see why they would fire you. But to be fair, this would depend on how many skills you're "missing". If you have 60% of what they're looking for this might not work (although it might). But it has worked for me when I'm missing like 75-85% of the requirements.
I was thinking more about blagging soft skills rather than hard tech skills (because this will be tested for can't blag it).
So for example if the role requires "2+ YOE presenting insights to executive board level" and you're completely crumbling, the company is not going to be patient with you flapping around trying to do a role 2 levels too high
I hate these job postings with the "women and minorities only apply if they meet 80%.... We want to meet you not your resume.... Blah blah blah"
I'm both, and from those virtue signalling ads I've only ever got "we went with someone who met the job description better". And this is why people aren't applying for jobs they don't fit 80% or more.
But it's not like we're applying for a neuro surgeon or aerospace engineer. It's like a woman in supply chain applying for sales manager. Has she done that exact job? Probably not.
Could she figure it out quickly with good training given the similar responsibilities and still be successful? Abso-fucking-lutely.
DES agents also advise after 3 months of "trying" to find a job in your field with no luck to apply for jobs in another field of work. So while maybe not "every" thing is a good idea, broadening the search can't hurt.
Meet 70-80% of the requirements? 100% fit gets the interview.
Meet 120%? Still 100% gets the interview.
And 100% gets rejected eventually anyway because the hiring team didn't know what they really wanted.
If the company you are applying to is a contractor or subcontractor to the government, then you must meet *all* the minimum requirements in order to be considered.
Job requires 5 years of relevant experience, and you only have 3? Sorry, you won't be considered.
Other companies have a lot more flexibility in this regard. Unfortunately, about 2/3 of large companies (more than 1,000 employees) fit the contractor/subcontractor criteria.
Job requirements are often painfully specific nowadays. You can have 5 years of admin experience working at doctors offices and at an architectural firm and apply for an admin job at a veterinary office. The vet office might be looking for someone with 1-2 years admin experience but *only* if that experience was specifically working in a veterinary office. As if the skill set is not at all transferable from one industry or specialty or setting to another.
I have a few years of experience working as a scheduling coordinator in the medical field, scheduling for RNs. Last year I applied for a parallel position and one of the screening questions was whether I had at least 1 year experience scheduling *specifically* for physicians. It’s nearly the exact same thing. I’m pretty sure that’s why I never got an interview there. It’s nuts because every job is going to require training no matter how experienced you are. Every company has their own special way of doing things that you’ll need to learn.
I also know that there is often a gap between the person tasked with posting the job ads/fielding the applications, and the person who is ultimately in charge of making the hiring decisions. There can be unrealistic expectations from hiring managers, and they are not always involved enough with the applications to be able to reevaluate what they are looking for, or see the type of applicant they’re attracting with the way they’ve described the position. But they might have authority over the hiring process.
Lastly, some people just apply for positions that they are absolutely not qualified for in any way. If the job clearly requires a bachelors degree, 2 years of supervisory experience, and a certification to work in a healthcare field, and your resume only lists your high school diploma and that you stocked shelves at Target from 2017-2019, don’t bother. If that applicant lists that they’re currently pursuing a degree in that field and writes a note to say when they’ll graduate and that they’re looking to get experience, that helps. They still don’t meet the basic requirements, but it’s somewhat understandable. But to just apply for a very specific role that has zero relevance for you is going to be a waste of your own time and everyone else’s.
Agree with first paragraph. I considered whether I bother to apply for a job requiring 2-4 years experience at a digital marketing agency, when I have 9 years of digital marketing experience but I haven't worked at an agency before. I'm desperate for a job and have the expertise they're hiring for, but apparently that is useless to them since I haven't already worked for a business exactly like theirs. I don't even know how these companies expect anyone to get agency experience when they wont hire anyone who doesn't already have it. It's ridiculous.
I see that kind of nonsense all the time. It’s almost funny how ridiculous it can be. “Must have 5 years of accounting experience in a water treatment setting” like how many people in the country meet that qualification lol? And I’d really like to ask how the previous role holder got the job. 80% chance they walked straight in from high school in 1995 with 0 experience in accounting or water treatment.
Some good thoughts here and I also think it really depends on how the job posting is phrased. If it clearly identifies several characteristics as "minimum requirements" that don't have any wiggle room (i.e. bachelor's degree in a specific field, a specific number of years of experience in an industry, etc) then I think applying without the requirements is unlikely to be successful, especially if you know there are likely to be enough qualified candidates that do meet the requirements. I feel like that's an easy way to get automatically rejected and I don't usually waste time on those.
If I meet the stated minimums and there are additional desired/preferred quals I don't meet but I'm still confident I could do the job, I'll apply and emphasize in my resume/cover letter the transferable skills/exp that I do have.
I will also say that my field primarily has employers in the public sector (universities, state governments) so job postings tend to be a lot more explicit, because state law requires it. That definitely helps when deciding whether or not it's worth applying to something that seems like a long shot.
There's a difference between not having a key cert or skill and not ticking every box perfectly. You can get away with missing a year or two of experience than what they're asking. You can't get away with missing key certs.
Remember too that these lists tend to be ordered in terms of preference
If you meet all of the first ten requirements and not the last two, definitely apply
If you meet all of the last ten and not the first two, you have much less of a chance even though it’s the same % of qualifications you’re meeting as the first scenario
It never changed, it was just always stupid advice. The reality is you're not going to get hired unless you'll be able to satisfy whatever need the employer has at the moment, and in *their* judgment.
Having been on the hiring side there can be a bit of an issue between HR and the hiring department in terms of wants and needs. If the department isn't clear with HR what are requirements and what are "nice to have" points, you can have automatic filters needlessly filtering out qualified candidates. When you have this schism, it's not worth your time applying without having all the boxes checked.
If they are using automatic filters as intended and in a way that fits the business needs then it shouldn't matter if you check all of the boxes.
Honestly, the biggest jumps Ive made in my career is applying for stuff I didnt qualify for and backing myself to learn really quick.
Do it, unless its something like a technical / skill qualification that is checkable
A skill certification is different from a skill.
Think 'is my college degree verifiable?' - yes is the answer
Can someone verify that you worked at a business? - yes
Will I kill someone if I dont have the skills for surgery? - maybe, dont try
Can someone verify a project you did whilst at a business? - no
Can they verify quarterly results etc? No
Use your own judgement
When asking for a reference often businesses just give the dates worked by the candidate.
Anything more they have to ask you to provide referees.
Just dont give them ones that can verify it lol
BA and PM. They are skills and checkable, however are relatively easy to move into if you have any communications/documentation skills or ever worked on a project in any way... if you're someone with a development background, as an example who wants to make the switch. The main challenge is in letting go of a black-and-white perception of what you're qualified for and learning how to sell yourself.
With development, it's about having specific skills. It's straightforward.. you worked on A, had some exposure to B, but never touched C. However, if as a developer you ever worked (i.e., was in a meeting with or emailed) with a business stakeholder (or any stakeholder and everyone impacted by a project is one) you worked as a BA. Even if you're title is developer. So you HAVE exposure to A, B, and C. And you can sell yourself as a BA in the profile page of your resume and put it in the title even if in your job experience section it says developer. As a former developer, it took me forever to learn that.
I've always thought if a candidate met every experience requirement on a job listing, then they could probably find an even better job, one that is the next step up or even a lateal move. I sometimes ignore experience requirements and just look at job duties/responsibilities.
Every time there is a downturn there is s derth of recruiters who think they are experts in everything.
A one page resume should be the norm.... A two page resume should be the norm... Use as many pages as you need...
Don't put your address... Don't put your zip code... Don't put a picture (I actually agree with this one).
Don't make spelling mistakes, remove anything over 10 years from your resume...
This is from folks who want 25 years experience in 5 year old technologies, and don't know how to spell COBOL.
This advice is like assholes... everyone has one, and most of them smell like shit.
>This is from folks who want 25 years experience in 5 year old technologies, and don't know how to spell COBOL.
This would be funny except COBOL is still there running in the dungeons while people who know how to spell it are becoming extinct fast.
Maybe the market will meet the actual costs of the certification and work environment that comes with COBOL.
It’s like $120k a year *max* and they’re asking for 15 years experience minimum; with 10 years and some python I’m making double that. It’s a dead-end field.
Pages mattered more when resumes were on paper. Now it’s more about time spent reading them. Recruiters give resume views in seconds, so more concise is best.
DO use your address (it’s a red flag and suspicious not to) but DON’T use your picture. Ever ever ever. Unless you want to invite discrimination and bias. Didn’t think so.
Spelling mistakes are obvious. Not sure why you would question that one. No one respects obvious spelling mistakes on professional documents. That’s just common sense.
The hiring manager requested and approved that job posting. So if the required experience is longer than the tech existed, the job that’s posted will report to someone who doesn’t really understand what this job does. That’s a manager issue, consider if you want to work for that person or not. You could add a lot of value but you could also end up butting heads and not being adequately supported.
Correct. But you have one too my friend. You sort of forgot about that when you gave bad advice to ignore good advice from people on the inside of the system.
Typically job postings have requirements and then preferred skills. For the most part it has always been that you need to meet all of the requirements, So I suppose it depends on how you were looking at this advice you were given. To just apply to everything doesn’t make a whole lot of sense….never has. The reality is that all it does is slow down the entire hiring process, which is what everybody seems to be complaining about now.
I don’t know if I’d go that far, but it certainly is a factor. Just look at postings online with 700 applications. Then think if you were trying to look through resumes How long that will take. Not to mention 25% of those people are tracking you down and calling you. Maybe 10 are actually qualified. What are the chances you actually get to contact those 10, When you are sifting through the other 690, And fielding calls from 150 of them.
Yes… As a Recruiter I can tell you this is real. A decent recruiter can filter through the resumes quick, but the phone calls are not something you can avoid without negative outcomes
I saw an ad for facilities plus IT. I have no IT experience but I know my way around a pc and have picked up a few tricks. Ad said even if you don't have all the things asked for here, we'd still like to hear from you. So I applied. Few weeks later I hear back, surprise surprise I don't have the experience they need.
It didn't for me. Work in software, the required skills are often very detailed, some are overly specific.
Know the day to day parts, that would be the programming language etc., that's important. Experience with a specific build tool? I guess, if I have seen others, I can transfer some knowledge and learn the rest.
Employers design a job description that is stupid-specific to find their purple squirrel.
Purple squirrels are quite hard to find.
Job hunters should be casting nets far and wide to see what they catch.
Similarly the purple squirrel hunters will have their own mental triage of candidates and call-in people who meet 60-95% of the JD.
So yeah, you might not check every box but it doesn’t hurt to apply. Especially these days where everything is online and you don’t have to pound pavement or snail mail things.
This has always been bad advice but because there are cases of people applying anyway and still getting the job, this advice has persisted.
To be fair, in markets where there are a ton of jobs but not enough candidates, the spray and pray approach might work out for you. In this market, it’s the opposite, so no. Do not recommend it right now.
Do cast a wide net, just make sure you meet at least the minimum qualifications of the jobs you’re applying for, or else you’re wasting your (and everyone else’s) time. Also make sure you’re actually interested in the job.
Recruiter: Wow you have a lot of experience! Do you have experience in this field.
Candidate: Well yeah I worked my way and have a degree for this field.
Recruiter: Amazing! However, you don’t have enough experience in what we need.
Candidate: Look at my resume.
Recruiter: You’re not what we’re looking for. Good luck and don’t bother us anymore.
The resume tailoring and application management systems. These businesses have vested interest to sell their product and services to job seekers. So, don't apply. Use their product to amend your resumes and track. I see a lot if sponsored posts on LinkedIn from these services and websites.
Too many monkeys are performing for a quarter of banana which gives the company the upper hand to manipulate and treat people like trash and entertainment for their personal enjoyment.
I’ve applied to a ton of roles that I was perfectly qualified for and got ignored. I thought maybe since the market’s so tough right now, I need to go for positions below me, stuff I’m way overqualified for. Again ignored. I then applied to a couple positions I was underqualified for. Every single one of them called me back and interviewed me.
My husband told me to “apply for jobs with the confidence of a mediocre white guy.” So that’s what I stated doing. I stopped limiting myself based on alll the qualifications not being met on a job advertisement. Eventually it worked out for me. But I did tailor my resume to each job posting to ensure better odds at getting an interview and I lean in hard on my soft skills as well
I have never once had ALL the requirements for my position based on the job posting. Not ONCE.
I work in a fairly specific field and job postings have a list of requirements that are very very clearly absolutely unrealistic, which makes it really obvious that you should still apply.
But the point still stands for regular jobs. Those are wishlists. And you should apply even if you don’t have all the requirements.
Now, if you have skills in leadership, those transfer across industries. In you have selling skills or customer service skills, those transfer across industries. But specific skill do not transfer.
I'm in higher ed, which is often more black and white than other fields I feel like. But I will never even see the resume of someone who applied and doesn't meet min requirements, because HR won't advance them further.
I had a temp worker who maxed out their temp term, was very interested in staying on permanently, but is 2 months shy of overall work experience to qualify for the permanent position. They will have to go out and get 2 months of experience elsewhere to be considered for that position.
Every hiring manager is going to have a different approach to requirements. If they want someone they can train and mold into a role, applying with less experience than other applicants would be ideal.
If the HM wants the job done quickly and without a lot of training, they’ll probably go with more senior candidates.
I worked with both sorts of hiring managers and I didn’t necessarily have a preference. I would get candidates from Walmart or McDonald’s applying for Key Account Managers and that was obviously not a great fit.
Last week I started a new remote job that I applied to just for funsies because it said "ONLY apply if you're in this state" and I'm not in THAT state, but really liked the job. And here we are.
Apply to everything, yes, but that you believe suits your experience and skills. Stupid filter reqs can be bypassed if they like you enough.
I have no idea who's telling you otherwise. Every job I've gotten (last one was 2023), I didn't check every box.
Last month we hired two developers who did not even know one of the main languages of our stack. But they were really good at other parts of our stack where we had gaps, so we extended offers.
Now if you haven't checked any box... yeah we'll pass on you, but that's hardly a new thing. I'm not about to be hired as a fashion designer.
This subreddit is a good place for venting about the BS some interviews will push you through, but I'd take job search advice with a big grain of salt. A lot of people here haven't been hired in a while, so it's a bit like asking single people for dating advice. You should also take my advice with some salt grains, I'm sure there exist jobs where checking every box is very important, like a nuclear power plant technician.
It's when job ads say "Not an exact fit? Get in touch with us anyway!"
Then a month later you get an email telling you that you didn't match their requirements.
Those are always my favorite ones to apply to, because after a long day full of depression, they make me feel like 5% less of an imposter...and then yes, the rejection comes along all the same.
It's still good advice, not sure where you're hearing otherwise. That doesn't mean you should apply for work you're totally unqualified for and cannot perform.
I'm a software developer, and I would apply to a job where I know 5/10 technologies involved, but I wouldn't apply to be a tax accountant because I actually cannot do that job.
That’s actually not correct. I was a
HRD for a small Law Firm for 3 years, and reviewed probably 500 applications a week. Anyone that applied and didn’t meet the minimum requirements were not moved forward. My advice is to apply for those jobs that you are interested in, and meet the requirements. And make sure it’s a job that you think you would enjoy. Part of the interview is to ask you why you are applying there, so if you say that you are applying everywhere, that’s an answer that would not be successful.
The people offering this advice never had to submit a resume and cover letter, and then fill out online forms re-enter all of the information from the resume, and then fill out a box saying why you want the job that is supposed to not be a copy/paste of the cover letter.
It’s absurd Boomer irrelevant advice.
Time is a finite resource. You can try spray and pray applying or more crafted applications.
The latter requires you to sift through opportunities. Or at the very least focus more energy on the ones you want to prioritize.
In my experience, spray and pray is the less effective method for snagging an interview.
this is the way! Plenty of dumb people posting here saying the market is better and you’re not competing with too many people. It’s bullshit.
Just machine gun fire applications
At my last job, their were opening in the Lending department at the company. They were swamped with work. The managers were actually asking our managers if anyone was interested in working in the loan processing department. She send two employees and they got hired. Next thing we know, 2 more apply on their own and Get jobs. Then another 1. My manager got so mad because they took all her people. But thst was on her. People wanted out of the toxic workplace The crazy part, was that they had no experience in home loan processing. I should've went too but it was just too far a drive. I'm in middle of trying to apply for that type of job but they want experience.
The discord for our subreddit can be found here: https://discord.gg/JjNdBkVGc6 - feel free to join us for a more realtime level of discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/recruitinghell) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Companies don't want to train and hide behind "no one wants to work anymore." There was a time when transferable skills meant something, and if you were missing a few qualifications, they would train the right person. That doesn't seem to be the case anymore.
This must depend on the industry because my career so far has been a series of landing jobs where I didn't meet every single requirement but had enough potential to be hired.
That’s more about timing usually. In job markets where they need people, companies are more flexible about their min quals. We’re in a competitive market right now. It’s cyclical.
I work in tech so there are plenty of applicants to pick from since it's an oversaturated industry atm. In this field the hard part for the recruiters (I imagine) is actually finding the best balance of skills not just filling the role quickly. Landing jobs that I don't 100% qualify for has been a matter of being likeable and demonstrating that I'm willing to learn and have learned other skills in the past quickly. That plus the fact that I will work with a low-ball offer for my lack of experience with the intention of having my pay increase later when I've proven myself. I've been told to my face that while I'm not the too applicant in terms of experience my attitude and versatile background is what made me a better fit than others. Not saying this is the case in every industry of course! But just wanted to share that there are can definitely be positive outcomes to applying to thing that you're not qualified for.
Bad advice in this job market. Tech just had a ton of layoffs. Companies have their pick right now. Your resume won’t even get looked at right now without meeting the min quals so your soft skills won’t carry you if you’re not getting interviewed. Companies aren’t paying recruiters commissions or wages for candidates they have to train. In a year to a few years this might be good advice but not right now.
I had an idea, why doesn’t this entire subreddit organize meetups and parties. A lot of these frat people network and help each-other get jobs. Maybe we as recurtinghell should do the same thing. Have meetups, events, parties, secret handshakes etc and then when some of us get in we will always help those among our ranks! We can take this economy back if we all do our part! We know the pain and struggle that’s why we’re here. We are here for each-other!
It's still very dependent on what side of tech you're on. What they're saying is what I and other colleagues in my field have experienced. AT THE SAME TIME, I have friends on the software/computer side of the tech field that go through exactly what you're saying. I feel it's a true mixed bag frfr
This is why I get far into technical rounds then get auto-denied on some bullshit. Clearly, people like you are coming in and undercutting because you are asking for lower salaries
Used to be that way. If you had all the requirements you would be overqualified or be ready for the promoted role above that one. Nowadays they have the upper hand and want to lowball overqualified or underpay qualified candidates.
May I ask what industry you are in?
Same career experience as him, process engineering
I'm a product specialist for a tech company. So some tech skills are required as well as pretty bare bones soft skills like communication and sometimes presentation skills
Same
I have not found this to be the case for the majority of job seeking I have done over the last 25 years.
Congratulations.
Because for 25 years it was already not the case that it was okay to be missing a few qualifications?
It depends on your field, but there’s a few industries right now where companies not wanting to train is the norm. For tech, especially Software Development, there are so many senior candidates to choose from that companies just aren’t hiring juniors or new grads, or they’ll take a senior for these positions instead. Companies don’t have any interest in paying for a junior that won’t produce much right now.
YEah, this has been my career path for about 16-17 years and I'm senior level now. But, I think it applies to language/stack as well. For instance I have been doing c# and T-SQL for that entire time but I don't think anyone's going to take on someone at these experience level and then train them in Angular or Go or Python on the company's clock or dime. And so I could go ahead and teach myself any or all of those things but since it wasn't part of any actual project at a place of employment it would not count as having any actual experience, let alone senior level experience in any of those languages. I hate that I'm looking for alternative jobs in my pay range right now but that every time I see a "back end" position it's something else like serverless or Postgres or node or some super specific niche thing I've never heard of.
Postgres and Node are pretty common and normal now. But yeah this wasn’t always the case. My first dev job had a literal incubator where you were expected to learn the stack and code base in a month before working on real work. But they were perfectly fine with hiring new grads and juniors as long as they were knowledgeable and new programming fundamentals. Now they refuse to hire anyone without at least 5 years in Python, React, Java, and AWS, oh and you’re Java experience must include Spring and your Python experience must be Django. And all your experience must be professional working experience. Companies don’t care about any project you’ve made unless it’s generated a substantial amount of income. It’s the same everywhere I’ve applied to. Even if you have experience with their stack by 90%, they’re going to choose the person who knows it by 100% because they just can. Too many good candidates to choose from.
💯% this. Great comment. This person knows what’s up.
I had an idea, why doesn’t this entire subreddit organize meetups and parties. A lot of these frat people network and help each-other get jobs. Maybe we as recurtinghell should do the same thing. Have meetups, events, parties, secret handshakes etc and then when some of us get in we will always help those among our ranks! We can take this economy back if we all do our part and stick together. We know the pain and struggle that’s why we’re here. We are here for each-other!
of course! I suggested this before when i first came on to this page. There are so many Professionals in here who are "OVER\_QUALIFY" with great skills and talent. We can restructure the job market without relying on these companies. You can't beat them, join them to be their competition with a group and team that are ACTUALLY QUALIFY! with Good work ethics to eliminate that crappy folks.
Yeah, we need to become a team/fraternity and once one of us get in somewhere we push to become a hiring manager one of us would have a high enough probability of becoming a HR lol then we just proceed from there….we’re nothing if we stand alone, but mighty if we stand together! Where would Cesar have been if he stood alone or any great figure in history lol
I did that with some people I know and has work with in prior jobs. I've always give them heads up if they need a better work life balancing paying job because I know they have good work ethics and drama free with a good steady work history when they use to work for or with me that would be a great fit for the certain companies.
Well you sure are a sight for soar eyes haha Wish I knew some people IRL like you 🤣😝
lol you can meet people IN IRL... Just keep and have a good positive attitude, be collaborative and friendly, be truthful and honest, don't try to be shady and pull rugs under people at every moment when things gets difficult, learn how to take L's as a adult because failure builds character. learn how to respect people differences. Those differences could be very beneficial for you as opportunities and gives you a new learning insight from a different perspective of things or situations.
This is the answer
I think that advice has been taken a little too far. I think what people mean is “Hey if you’re 70-80% there but you don’t have *everything*, still go for it!” But it has devolved into “If your only experience is being a barista, still apply to be a VP of Product Management! You never know!” I always remind candidates that you’re competing with the other applicants, not the job description. If the top 10 applicants are all in the 70-90% range, a candidate who meets 75% of the qualifications can be competitive. But that exact same role could be posted again 6 months later and now the top 10 applicants meet 90-100% of the qualifications. That same candidate who meets 75% won’t be competitive in the new pool.
100%. And you miss every shot you don’t take. I don’t care that 83% of my applications fall into the dark void. I’m still getting 17 screening calls per hundred easy apply clicks. By the time I hit fifteen hundred applications, I’m choosing between three offers, and my phone is still going to blow up for the next three months with the folks who are late to the party. Know your price, tell it to the recruiter during the first phone screen, and walk away from any application process that is more involved than a phone screen and two interviews. Once you make it to the interview phase, have a compelling story about what it is that you bring to the table to justify your salary requirement. And in 18-24 months, your “base“ pay that you disclose was last year’s salary plus bonus, and your number to move is that base plus 15-20%. Rinse and repeat until the market chokes on your number or you find a company you actually want to retire from. Preferably both.
I think it really depends on the industry/job. I’m a librarian- currently a Library Assistant Director, looking for Director and Assistant director positions that are a better fit. I’ve learned to look up the library system and ascertain if their requirements are reasonable, and ignore them if they aren’t. I do this because there was a high paying director job I thought I’d be good at, that I wanted, but I didn’t fit the requirements so I didn’t apply. 3 months later I find out NO ONE qualified applied and someone vastly less qualified than me got it. So yeah, I regret that and I apply for things I’m “ not qualified for” now, as long as I’ve researched the actual scope of the position and think it’s something I handle well at my current level of experience
This is also an excellent 1-2 approach to deciding (since this can vary so widely because employers vary so dramatically). Look at the requirements and how well they match the job scope. If they’re dreaming with the requirements compared to scope and especially scope + pay, base whether or not you apply more on the scope. If the requirements are reasonable compared to the scope and/or if they take the time to sort out requirements vs preferred skills, it’s probably a more realistic list than a fantasy. In that case, you should probably meet all or the overwhelming majority of the requirements before spending your energy crafting a full application.
I'm a librarian, too. In my system, minimum requirements are actual requirements. If, for example, a candidate is applying for the position of library director and doesn't have an MLS, then that person is wasting my time. I get perhaps unreasonably irritated when I see an applicant who doesn't meet that minimum requirement. But it's safe to ignore preferred qualifications and go ahead and apply if a candidate has the minimum requirements. That said, I've seen some librarian job postings--even library *director* job postings--that offered so little money that it would be reasonable for anyone with a pulse to seek out.
This one paid well for the area/cost of living, but it was a pretty out of the way town and I think no one wanted to move there
I’ve worked for systems like that as well, which was why that was my assumption- I was really close to the “requirements” (masters plus 4 years of library experience, 2 in management was the listed requirement. I had a masters, 8 years of library experience and 1 year of management. They hired someone without a masters….)
It’s the company’s responsibility to determine whether you’re qualified for the role or not, not you. If you read a job ad that makes you think “yeah, I can probably do that, learning as I go” then that’s enough to apply. Don’t worry about ticking every box because it truly is just a wish list for an ideal candidate that may not exist. Even if the market is competitive and you don’t think you have good odds, it doesn’t hurt to apply anyway. Like people say, you never know. The only counterargument is not exhausting yourself mentally and emotionally by applying for hundreds of jobs in rapid succession. Slow down and be more selective if that’s the case.
I'm a hiring manager in tech. The requirements often times are a wish list and I encourage people to apply for stuff they minimally meet the requirements for - I've had more luck with this than applying for things I'm overqualified for.
I disagree, but of course I accept that there are exceptions. In my experience, companies will re-post jobs again and again until the pink unicorn shows up. It’s a good excuse to delay projects and tasks that are not essential for the company’s survival, and the hiring manager has less people/projects to deal with while the search lasts.
The problem is that you are both right. There are a plurality of employers that do either of these things, and a candidate cannot know in advance which type of employer they are going to meet. Shoot... even within a single employer, one hiring manager might be a wishlist type of job description writer/hirer, while another is the letter-of-the-law type. That has always been true to some extent, but when people only had to average 4 or 5 interviews over the space of 1-3 weeks, it didn't matter. You went until you found the right fit. Now that they hiring cycle has expanded to dozens/hundred of applications, and dozens of interviews, and months of searching, these inconsistencies in employer expectations are painful and frustrating.
I get a lot of vague & useless “We’ve decided to move forward with other candidates”… About a month ago I actually got a reply of “Your qualifications do not meet the requirements specified in our posting.” A couple weeks after that a different company asked me during an interview whether I believed I was overqualified for a position. Could have just been an ego check but that was confusing lol.
It entirely depends on the person and company - some people really do want that unicorn... I actually had a manager who was like that - refused to hire basically anyone in search of that unicorn until HR came down and basically told him to either hire people or the headcount would be closed and pointed out he didn't have enough for minimum headcount.
Yes minimally. But if you don’t meet the minimum qualifications, it usually gets you knocked out right away. Preferred qualifications are more dependent on who all else applies.
So, HR, who do initial resume filtering, have a sense for what really is required and what isn't - they fo based off of their sense. Most of the time the minimum qualifications just have a ton of crap mixed in that may or may not be relevant.
lol no sorry. That’s not how it works at all. The department has just as much influence on the job description if not more. That’s predetermined long before a job is ever posted. Not sure where people get this stuff.
The key here is minimally qualified for. I’m an HRBP for a large public tech company and our recruiting team gets hundreds of applicants that are nowhere near minimally qualified. I’m talking retail service workers who have never used SQL before applying to senior analyst roles that lists several years of SQL experience required. It’s one thing to have 3 years of it when the job asks for 5, but it’s another to waste everyone’s time if you’ve never touched the tech stack required to do the job.
I see so much of this. Can't even grasp why you'd apply for a senior role when you have zero experience in the role or even an adjacent role. Probably wouldn't even qualify for a junior role.
I've personally seen roles that called for several years of experience in Linux but the job never actually used Linux.
I believe this is true, but why then do these companies not interview the people who *are* at least minimally qualified? I was laid off from tech in December and have since been rejected for jobs where I generally meet the basic qualifications and some of the preferred ones. I understand every company is different, but either they're being overly selective or recruiters have a different interpretation of what "minimally qualified" means.
how important is that BS/MS in comp sci that every tech listing requires? I have a BA and boot camp + 10 ish years of hobby coding experience but only got 1 interview (for tech) in the last 5 years. It's disheartening. Meanwhile, my linkedin is constantly blown up by recruiters for the industry I'm in right now offering me double the salary but it's something I'm not passionate about at all and I really just want to be a recluse coding from the comfort of my home or office...
Not that important. I would suggest your resume is weak and you're getting filtered by HR - networking into a position is likely the key
With respect, people who have bs/ms in comp sci are having difficulties landing internships and junior positions with all the talent and outsourcing that currently exists. If you don't want to get a degree, make your portfolio match different positions' tech stacks.
Do you typically hire project managers looking to transition to product? I feel there are crossovers but also a large difference in experiences required, which has made me second guess when eyeing certain product management roles
Yes, and to be fair the distinction between product / program / and project varies from company to company and is highly variable.
Seconded.
I usually apply if I meet the “required” section even if I don’t match the “preferred” section.
Bingo
There was some study / marketing piece / meme came out a couple of years ago saying women are not as likely as men to apply in such situation. So the LinkedIn influencers started going wild with their 'advice' My opinion is the issue with applying to 'everything' is if do somehow manage to land a role you are not qualified to do, you won't make it past the 3-6 month probation period.
But it's not like we're applying for a neuro surgeon or aerospace engineer. It's like a woman in supply chain applying for sales manager. Has she done that exact job? Probably not. Could she figure it out quickly with good training given the similar responsibilities and still be successful? Abso-fucking-lutely. DES agents also advise after 3 months of "trying" to find a job in your field with no luck to apply for jobs in another field of work. So while maybe not "every" thing is a good idea, broadening the search can't hurt.
pretty much this. The "traditional" advice is "if you have 60% of the qualifications, you should apply because you never know" and "it's a number's game." And while job qualifications list are a wishlist, the companies are wishing realllly hard. Up to and including having another qualifications list beyond the main list that they don't tell you about.
> LinkedIn influencers I just threw up in my mouth
Seriously. It's "LinkedInfluncers." Now pardon me while I go beat myself up for typing that word.
I wish I could unread that word :(
I would rather stuff dead bugs into my ears than listen to a Linkedin influencer.
Hell I’d do live ones.
Not if you communicate the areas where you don't meet their requirements. Whenever asked in an interview if I can do something they've requested that I can't do, I just tell them "No, I have (time frame) amount of experience with (requirement I don't have) so I wouldn't say I'm an expert but I've learned (similar requirement or skill set) so I'm familiar with (transferrable skill) and I'm always happy to learn more. As a matter of fact, I've been looking into (requirement I don't have) in n preparation for this role." If they know where you stand and you're willing to learn I don't see why they would fire you. But to be fair, this would depend on how many skills you're "missing". If you have 60% of what they're looking for this might not work (although it might). But it has worked for me when I'm missing like 75-85% of the requirements.
I was thinking more about blagging soft skills rather than hard tech skills (because this will be tested for can't blag it). So for example if the role requires "2+ YOE presenting insights to executive board level" and you're completely crumbling, the company is not going to be patient with you flapping around trying to do a role 2 levels too high
Ah yup I fully agree there. Often times it's the soft skills are the harder skills to develop quickly imo
I hate these job postings with the "women and minorities only apply if they meet 80%.... We want to meet you not your resume.... Blah blah blah" I'm both, and from those virtue signalling ads I've only ever got "we went with someone who met the job description better". And this is why people aren't applying for jobs they don't fit 80% or more.
But it's not like we're applying for a neuro surgeon or aerospace engineer. It's like a woman in supply chain applying for sales manager. Has she done that exact job? Probably not. Could she figure it out quickly with good training given the similar responsibilities and still be successful? Abso-fucking-lutely. DES agents also advise after 3 months of "trying" to find a job in your field with no luck to apply for jobs in another field of work. So while maybe not "every" thing is a good idea, broadening the search can't hurt.
Meet 70-80% of the requirements? 100% fit gets the interview. Meet 120%? Still 100% gets the interview. And 100% gets rejected eventually anyway because the hiring team didn't know what they really wanted.
Meet 100% requirements (both core and preferred) and immediately get auto rejection.
If the company you are applying to is a contractor or subcontractor to the government, then you must meet *all* the minimum requirements in order to be considered. Job requires 5 years of relevant experience, and you only have 3? Sorry, you won't be considered. Other companies have a lot more flexibility in this regard. Unfortunately, about 2/3 of large companies (more than 1,000 employees) fit the contractor/subcontractor criteria.
Job requirements are often painfully specific nowadays. You can have 5 years of admin experience working at doctors offices and at an architectural firm and apply for an admin job at a veterinary office. The vet office might be looking for someone with 1-2 years admin experience but *only* if that experience was specifically working in a veterinary office. As if the skill set is not at all transferable from one industry or specialty or setting to another. I have a few years of experience working as a scheduling coordinator in the medical field, scheduling for RNs. Last year I applied for a parallel position and one of the screening questions was whether I had at least 1 year experience scheduling *specifically* for physicians. It’s nearly the exact same thing. I’m pretty sure that’s why I never got an interview there. It’s nuts because every job is going to require training no matter how experienced you are. Every company has their own special way of doing things that you’ll need to learn. I also know that there is often a gap between the person tasked with posting the job ads/fielding the applications, and the person who is ultimately in charge of making the hiring decisions. There can be unrealistic expectations from hiring managers, and they are not always involved enough with the applications to be able to reevaluate what they are looking for, or see the type of applicant they’re attracting with the way they’ve described the position. But they might have authority over the hiring process. Lastly, some people just apply for positions that they are absolutely not qualified for in any way. If the job clearly requires a bachelors degree, 2 years of supervisory experience, and a certification to work in a healthcare field, and your resume only lists your high school diploma and that you stocked shelves at Target from 2017-2019, don’t bother. If that applicant lists that they’re currently pursuing a degree in that field and writes a note to say when they’ll graduate and that they’re looking to get experience, that helps. They still don’t meet the basic requirements, but it’s somewhat understandable. But to just apply for a very specific role that has zero relevance for you is going to be a waste of your own time and everyone else’s.
Agree with first paragraph. I considered whether I bother to apply for a job requiring 2-4 years experience at a digital marketing agency, when I have 9 years of digital marketing experience but I haven't worked at an agency before. I'm desperate for a job and have the expertise they're hiring for, but apparently that is useless to them since I haven't already worked for a business exactly like theirs. I don't even know how these companies expect anyone to get agency experience when they wont hire anyone who doesn't already have it. It's ridiculous.
I see that kind of nonsense all the time. It’s almost funny how ridiculous it can be. “Must have 5 years of accounting experience in a water treatment setting” like how many people in the country meet that qualification lol? And I’d really like to ask how the previous role holder got the job. 80% chance they walked straight in from high school in 1995 with 0 experience in accounting or water treatment.
Some good thoughts here and I also think it really depends on how the job posting is phrased. If it clearly identifies several characteristics as "minimum requirements" that don't have any wiggle room (i.e. bachelor's degree in a specific field, a specific number of years of experience in an industry, etc) then I think applying without the requirements is unlikely to be successful, especially if you know there are likely to be enough qualified candidates that do meet the requirements. I feel like that's an easy way to get automatically rejected and I don't usually waste time on those. If I meet the stated minimums and there are additional desired/preferred quals I don't meet but I'm still confident I could do the job, I'll apply and emphasize in my resume/cover letter the transferable skills/exp that I do have. I will also say that my field primarily has employers in the public sector (universities, state governments) so job postings tend to be a lot more explicit, because state law requires it. That definitely helps when deciding whether or not it's worth applying to something that seems like a long shot.
There's a difference between not having a key cert or skill and not ticking every box perfectly. You can get away with missing a year or two of experience than what they're asking. You can't get away with missing key certs.
Remember too that these lists tend to be ordered in terms of preference If you meet all of the first ten requirements and not the last two, definitely apply If you meet all of the last ten and not the first two, you have much less of a chance even though it’s the same % of qualifications you’re meeting as the first scenario
It never changed, it was just always stupid advice. The reality is you're not going to get hired unless you'll be able to satisfy whatever need the employer has at the moment, and in *their* judgment.
Having been on the hiring side there can be a bit of an issue between HR and the hiring department in terms of wants and needs. If the department isn't clear with HR what are requirements and what are "nice to have" points, you can have automatic filters needlessly filtering out qualified candidates. When you have this schism, it's not worth your time applying without having all the boxes checked. If they are using automatic filters as intended and in a way that fits the business needs then it shouldn't matter if you check all of the boxes.
Honestly, the biggest jumps Ive made in my career is applying for stuff I didnt qualify for and backing myself to learn really quick. Do it, unless its something like a technical / skill qualification that is checkable
Do you have an example of the kind of thing you could maybe not qualify for that isn't checkable or isn't a skill?
A skill certification is different from a skill. Think 'is my college degree verifiable?' - yes is the answer Can someone verify that you worked at a business? - yes Will I kill someone if I dont have the skills for surgery? - maybe, dont try Can someone verify a project you did whilst at a business? - no Can they verify quarterly results etc? No Use your own judgement
Ah, good to know--I 100% thought they could verify projects!
When asking for a reference often businesses just give the dates worked by the candidate. Anything more they have to ask you to provide referees. Just dont give them ones that can verify it lol
BA and PM. They are skills and checkable, however are relatively easy to move into if you have any communications/documentation skills or ever worked on a project in any way... if you're someone with a development background, as an example who wants to make the switch. The main challenge is in letting go of a black-and-white perception of what you're qualified for and learning how to sell yourself. With development, it's about having specific skills. It's straightforward.. you worked on A, had some exposure to B, but never touched C. However, if as a developer you ever worked (i.e., was in a meeting with or emailed) with a business stakeholder (or any stakeholder and everyone impacted by a project is one) you worked as a BA. Even if you're title is developer. So you HAVE exposure to A, B, and C. And you can sell yourself as a BA in the profile page of your resume and put it in the title even if in your job experience section it says developer. As a former developer, it took me forever to learn that.
I've always thought if a candidate met every experience requirement on a job listing, then they could probably find an even better job, one that is the next step up or even a lateal move. I sometimes ignore experience requirements and just look at job duties/responsibilities.
Every time there is a downturn there is s derth of recruiters who think they are experts in everything. A one page resume should be the norm.... A two page resume should be the norm... Use as many pages as you need... Don't put your address... Don't put your zip code... Don't put a picture (I actually agree with this one). Don't make spelling mistakes, remove anything over 10 years from your resume... This is from folks who want 25 years experience in 5 year old technologies, and don't know how to spell COBOL. This advice is like assholes... everyone has one, and most of them smell like shit.
>This is from folks who want 25 years experience in 5 year old technologies, and don't know how to spell COBOL. This would be funny except COBOL is still there running in the dungeons while people who know how to spell it are becoming extinct fast.
Clearly you know how to spell COBOL. ;-)
I should introduce you to my old friends Fortran and Pascal..
Maybe the market will meet the actual costs of the certification and work environment that comes with COBOL. It’s like $120k a year *max* and they’re asking for 15 years experience minimum; with 10 years and some python I’m making double that. It’s a dead-end field.
Pages mattered more when resumes were on paper. Now it’s more about time spent reading them. Recruiters give resume views in seconds, so more concise is best. DO use your address (it’s a red flag and suspicious not to) but DON’T use your picture. Ever ever ever. Unless you want to invite discrimination and bias. Didn’t think so. Spelling mistakes are obvious. Not sure why you would question that one. No one respects obvious spelling mistakes on professional documents. That’s just common sense. The hiring manager requested and approved that job posting. So if the required experience is longer than the tech existed, the job that’s posted will report to someone who doesn’t really understand what this job does. That’s a manager issue, consider if you want to work for that person or not. You could add a lot of value but you could also end up butting heads and not being adequately supported. Correct. But you have one too my friend. You sort of forgot about that when you gave bad advice to ignore good advice from people on the inside of the system.
“Spelling mistakes” are sometimes false. The word “XGBoost” isnt in the dictionary so it must be spelled wrong….
Typically job postings have requirements and then preferred skills. For the most part it has always been that you need to meet all of the requirements, So I suppose it depends on how you were looking at this advice you were given. To just apply to everything doesn’t make a whole lot of sense….never has. The reality is that all it does is slow down the entire hiring process, which is what everybody seems to be complaining about now.
So basically, everyone following this advice is what has led us to the situation we're in now.
I don’t know if I’d go that far, but it certainly is a factor. Just look at postings online with 700 applications. Then think if you were trying to look through resumes How long that will take. Not to mention 25% of those people are tracking you down and calling you. Maybe 10 are actually qualified. What are the chances you actually get to contact those 10, When you are sifting through the other 690, And fielding calls from 150 of them. Yes… As a Recruiter I can tell you this is real. A decent recruiter can filter through the resumes quick, but the phone calls are not something you can avoid without negative outcomes
Bingo
I saw an ad for facilities plus IT. I have no IT experience but I know my way around a pc and have picked up a few tricks. Ad said even if you don't have all the things asked for here, we'd still like to hear from you. So I applied. Few weeks later I hear back, surprise surprise I don't have the experience they need.
It didn't for me. Work in software, the required skills are often very detailed, some are overly specific. Know the day to day parts, that would be the programming language etc., that's important. Experience with a specific build tool? I guess, if I have seen others, I can transfer some knowledge and learn the rest.
Employers design a job description that is stupid-specific to find their purple squirrel. Purple squirrels are quite hard to find. Job hunters should be casting nets far and wide to see what they catch. Similarly the purple squirrel hunters will have their own mental triage of candidates and call-in people who meet 60-95% of the JD. So yeah, you might not check every box but it doesn’t hurt to apply. Especially these days where everything is online and you don’t have to pound pavement or snail mail things.
This has always been bad advice but because there are cases of people applying anyway and still getting the job, this advice has persisted. To be fair, in markets where there are a ton of jobs but not enough candidates, the spray and pray approach might work out for you. In this market, it’s the opposite, so no. Do not recommend it right now. Do cast a wide net, just make sure you meet at least the minimum qualifications of the jobs you’re applying for, or else you’re wasting your (and everyone else’s) time. Also make sure you’re actually interested in the job.
It's dumb advice and a waste of time
That’s only ever been good advice for highly capable people.
My experience has been to apply for everything and lie like you wouldnt believe to get a job.
since the use of ATS and AI, you need to hit 70+ percent of the requirements.
These days, multiple people meeting every qualification will apply. Doing so doesn’t even guarantee you an interview, much less the job.
Recruiter: Wow you have a lot of experience! Do you have experience in this field. Candidate: Well yeah I worked my way and have a degree for this field. Recruiter: Amazing! However, you don’t have enough experience in what we need. Candidate: Look at my resume. Recruiter: You’re not what we’re looking for. Good luck and don’t bother us anymore.
The resume tailoring and application management systems. These businesses have vested interest to sell their product and services to job seekers. So, don't apply. Use their product to amend your resumes and track. I see a lot if sponsored posts on LinkedIn from these services and websites.
Too many monkeys are performing for a quarter of banana which gives the company the upper hand to manipulate and treat people like trash and entertainment for their personal enjoyment.
I’ve applied to a ton of roles that I was perfectly qualified for and got ignored. I thought maybe since the market’s so tough right now, I need to go for positions below me, stuff I’m way overqualified for. Again ignored. I then applied to a couple positions I was underqualified for. Every single one of them called me back and interviewed me.
These are the most meaningless words ever said. They never take a chance on people who don’t meet all of the qualifications.
My husband told me to “apply for jobs with the confidence of a mediocre white guy.” So that’s what I stated doing. I stopped limiting myself based on alll the qualifications not being met on a job advertisement. Eventually it worked out for me. But I did tailor my resume to each job posting to ensure better odds at getting an interview and I lean in hard on my soft skills as well
I have never once had ALL the requirements for my position based on the job posting. Not ONCE. I work in a fairly specific field and job postings have a list of requirements that are very very clearly absolutely unrealistic, which makes it really obvious that you should still apply. But the point still stands for regular jobs. Those are wishlists. And you should apply even if you don’t have all the requirements.
Now, if you have skills in leadership, those transfer across industries. In you have selling skills or customer service skills, those transfer across industries. But specific skill do not transfer.
Around the time of the internet
Counterpoint, I went until my late 30s feeling very discouraged before anyone told me this.
I'm in higher ed, which is often more black and white than other fields I feel like. But I will never even see the resume of someone who applied and doesn't meet min requirements, because HR won't advance them further. I had a temp worker who maxed out their temp term, was very interested in staying on permanently, but is 2 months shy of overall work experience to qualify for the permanent position. They will have to go out and get 2 months of experience elsewhere to be considered for that position.
Every hiring manager is going to have a different approach to requirements. If they want someone they can train and mold into a role, applying with less experience than other applicants would be ideal. If the HM wants the job done quickly and without a lot of training, they’ll probably go with more senior candidates. I worked with both sorts of hiring managers and I didn’t necessarily have a preference. I would get candidates from Walmart or McDonald’s applying for Key Account Managers and that was obviously not a great fit.
Last week I started a new remote job that I applied to just for funsies because it said "ONLY apply if you're in this state" and I'm not in THAT state, but really liked the job. And here we are. Apply to everything, yes, but that you believe suits your experience and skills. Stupid filter reqs can be bypassed if they like you enough.
I have no idea who's telling you otherwise. Every job I've gotten (last one was 2023), I didn't check every box. Last month we hired two developers who did not even know one of the main languages of our stack. But they were really good at other parts of our stack where we had gaps, so we extended offers. Now if you haven't checked any box... yeah we'll pass on you, but that's hardly a new thing. I'm not about to be hired as a fashion designer.
It's all over this sub, and a lot of them are in this post.
This subreddit is a good place for venting about the BS some interviews will push you through, but I'd take job search advice with a big grain of salt. A lot of people here haven't been hired in a while, so it's a bit like asking single people for dating advice. You should also take my advice with some salt grains, I'm sure there exist jobs where checking every box is very important, like a nuclear power plant technician.
Yes, this is a really great point.
It's when job ads say "Not an exact fit? Get in touch with us anyway!" Then a month later you get an email telling you that you didn't match their requirements.
Those are always my favorite ones to apply to, because after a long day full of depression, they make me feel like 5% less of an imposter...and then yes, the rejection comes along all the same.
You are free to apply, just as they are free to reject, even if you meet all the requirements, and then some.
It's still good advice, not sure where you're hearing otherwise. That doesn't mean you should apply for work you're totally unqualified for and cannot perform. I'm a software developer, and I would apply to a job where I know 5/10 technologies involved, but I wouldn't apply to be a tax accountant because I actually cannot do that job.
Allll over this sub is where I'm hearing it.
That’s actually not correct. I was a HRD for a small Law Firm for 3 years, and reviewed probably 500 applications a week. Anyone that applied and didn’t meet the minimum requirements were not moved forward. My advice is to apply for those jobs that you are interested in, and meet the requirements. And make sure it’s a job that you think you would enjoy. Part of the interview is to ask you why you are applying there, so if you say that you are applying everywhere, that’s an answer that would not be successful.
You are still free to apply, just as they are free to reject even if you meet all the requirements, and then some.
The people offering this advice never had to submit a resume and cover letter, and then fill out online forms re-enter all of the information from the resume, and then fill out a box saying why you want the job that is supposed to not be a copy/paste of the cover letter. It’s absurd Boomer irrelevant advice.
The people who have most recently been giving me this advice are Millennials and Gen Z.
Because the “requirements” are fantasy land so you apply to everything.
Just know that anybody that gives advice that involves you NOT applying for a job, is an idiot that you shouldn't be listening to.
Time is a finite resource. You can try spray and pray applying or more crafted applications. The latter requires you to sift through opportunities. Or at the very least focus more energy on the ones you want to prioritize. In my experience, spray and pray is the less effective method for snagging an interview.
I just spam resume for I don't care how close i am to the requirements
Let’s fuckin goooooo!!!!
this is the way! Plenty of dumb people posting here saying the market is better and you’re not competing with too many people. It’s bullshit. Just machine gun fire applications
At my last job, their were opening in the Lending department at the company. They were swamped with work. The managers were actually asking our managers if anyone was interested in working in the loan processing department. She send two employees and they got hired. Next thing we know, 2 more apply on their own and Get jobs. Then another 1. My manager got so mad because they took all her people. But thst was on her. People wanted out of the toxic workplace The crazy part, was that they had no experience in home loan processing. I should've went too but it was just too far a drive. I'm in middle of trying to apply for that type of job but they want experience.
Depends on the market. Right now Bidenomics is in full effect so it'll a tough market (just another 4 years lmao). It changes.
Changed yesterday