People, Stop Lying About Your Experience to Pass Weed-Out Questions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have the same issue as OP. 99% of the resumes I get are junk and completely unrelated to my field. The big problem is that my field doesn't have a college major associated with it and it's more skill based. There's a burnout factor at my job and a lot of the hires will never gain the skills needed. Pay is great. Our job is more research and critically analyzing. I've hired so many people who were extremely slow readers, unable to critically analyze things, poor writers, or just very slow workers (none of those things can be trained). I have asked for writing samples, but those can be fudged. I ask detailed questions in interviews to see how well people can think on their feet, but that weeds out people like me. I'm shy and bad at interviewing. I can think and write very quickly, but I cannot often say it out loud. The best thing I can do is hire persons who have done this job before and are looking for a promotion.

Skills can be learned on the job- yes but not at the salary I'm hiring at. Those people need a lot lower salary.

This job sounds awesome. Would you hire a litigator? That's basically the skillet. Would you hire me? I'm a litigator!

I had the same reaction - "oh, those are my skills!" - but then I remembered that "high burnout" is code for "pay isn't actually that great, when you factor in the time and stress." If the job had adequate staffing, pay, and vacation, people wouldn't routinely burn out.

[Anonymous]

This thread reminded me of something I saw that I found really interesting. This is posted on the "Careers" page of the Democracy Forward website:

"Not sure you meet all of our qualifications? Research shows that men apply for jobs when they meet an average of 60% of the criteria. Yet women and other people who are systematically marginalized tend to only apply if they meet every requirement. If you believe that you could excel in this role, we encourage you to apply. "

[Anonymous]

I'm in the tech field. One of the previous jobs I had listed like 20 different tech skills required in the job.. I was in that position for 2 years and didn't use half the things listed as required in the job description.

That's why people lie/exaggerate. Lol jobs be asking for the most when the job is simple. People just want to get their foot in the door.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, but nobody believes job advertisements are even real. Half the time they openings don't exist and the ad is just a way to submit your resume for a different, unposted job. The other half of the time, the company has asked for the moon but will settle for a reasonably tall tree.

I realize OP didn't personally create this problem but employers as a group did create it for themselves. Job hunters are just doing their best in a nasty market.

+100. Both are so incredibly common. Employers collectively created this mess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP did you post the exact salary in the job description as well so they can weed you out and not waste their time?

+900000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread reminded me of something I saw that I found really interesting. This is posted on the "Careers" page of the Democracy Forward website:

"Not sure you meet all of our qualifications? Research shows that men apply for jobs when they meet an average of 60% of the criteria. Yet women and other people who are systematically marginalized tend to only apply if they meet every requirement. If you believe that you could excel in this role, we encourage you to apply. "

I've seen this on other nonprofits' sites, too. So which is it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have the same issue as OP. 99% of the resumes I get are junk and completely unrelated to my field. The big problem is that my field doesn't have a college major associated with it and it's more skill based. There's a burnout factor at my job and a lot of the hires will never gain the skills needed. Pay is great. Our job is more research and critically analyzing. I've hired so many people who were extremely slow readers, unable to critically analyze things, poor writers, or just very slow workers (none of those things can be trained). I have asked for writing samples, but those can be fudged. I ask detailed questions in interviews to see how well people can think on their feet, but that weeds out people like me. I'm shy and bad at interviewing. I can think and write very quickly, but I cannot often say it out loud. The best thing I can do is hire persons who have done this job before and are looking for a promotion.

Skills can be learned on the job- yes but not at the salary I'm hiring at. Those people need a lot lower salary.

This job sounds awesome. Would you hire a litigator? That's basically the skillet. Would you hire me? I'm a litigator!

I had the same reaction - "oh, those are my skills!" - but then I remembered that "high burnout" is code for "pay isn't actually that great, when you factor in the time and stress." If the job had adequate staffing, pay, and vacation, people wouldn't routinely burn out.

Pp here. So funny! The best candidates are usually lawyers. I’ve hired some great MBAs too and even some English majors who were great. The burnout is usually because people can’t read fast enough or think critically. It’s just not something I can test for. Pay is 140-165k and benefits are great. I don’t lack for candidates and the employees who get it stay forever. It’s the new employees who turn over a lot because they aren’t doing well. You know who is terrible at this job? Criminal justice majors (there are so many who apply!) or human resource types of degrees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP did you post the exact salary in the job description as well so they can weed you out and not waste their time?

+900000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Yes it's required maybe that's the issue it is remote and pays over 300k total comp. So people are just throwing themselves at it. It is very clear there are 2 tech requirements the title is the name of the software technology you need to have experience in. I have dumber it all the way down to just the 2 things in the tech stack and people are obviously not reading it

[Anonymous]

People don't know that your requirements are actually real. For a lot of jobs, they aren't.

This.

I'm not going to defend lying on resumes, but, if these requirements are actually firm, then the company needs to state that in the job listing ("candidates who do not meet every stated requirement will not be considered"). Lots of companies have college degrees listed as "required" for secretary/receptionist jobs and others that don't actually require them. I've also seen things like "10 years' experience with X product/technology" when X hasn't existed for 10 years.

OP may be an exception, but many people who write job descriptions know little or nothing about what is required to actually do the job. That is why people don't trust that the requirements are actually requirements.

It would be much better for both sides if prospective employers listed requirements as "must have experience with X or more of the following."

[Anonymous]

OP, what would you do if a start date from previous employment is off by 6 months. I misremembered a previous job start date from about 12 years ago and listed a start date that was 6 months earlier than it should have been. It doesn’t add anything to my resume or my experience. Just a mistaken date bc I have moved several times and changed computers since then. Would you rescind the offer once discovered?

[Anonymous]

I'm recently hitting a lot of dumb weedout questions focused on having a specific degree (e.g. master's of public administration or business for managing grants). It's a yes/no. I've been managing grant programs with major compliance requirements for a decade and I'm not qualified because I don't have a business degree? Seriously?

[Anonymous]

Welcome to trying to get a job in the federal government. Magically every applicant is an expert who has trained others on every single skill.

The problem is that when jobs get hundreds of applicants and 80% of them just check the best box for every answer, the honest people's resumes never get seen.

It's all well and good to say "everyone should be honest and make things easier for everyone," but we live in reality where that doesn't happen. People will always lie to get an advantage and it forces the honest people to be dishonest because literally the only outcome of being honest is that your resume gets trashed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm recently hitting a lot of dumb weedout questions focused on having a specific degree (e.g. master's of public administration or business for managing grants). It's a yes/no. I've been managing grant programs with major compliance requirements for a decade and I'm not qualified because I don't have a business degree? Seriously?

This is a huge part of the problem of relying on AI and algorithms for this stiff. It's s all yes/no, 0/1 when real life is actually nuanced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm recently hitting a lot of dumb weedout questions focused on having a specific degree (e.g. master's of public administration or business for managing grants). It's a yes/no. I've been managing grant programs with major compliance requirements for a decade and I'm not qualified because I don't have a business degree? Seriously?

This is a huge part of the problem of relying on AI and algorithms for this stiff. It's s all yes/no, 0/1 when real life is actually nuanced.

No, you can set this without AI and if you don't have a degree then it would kick you out. This is up to the hiring manager, they may want to only have people with degrees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm recently hitting a lot of dumb weedout questions focused on having a specific degree (e.g. master's of public administration or business for managing grants). It's a yes/no. I've been managing grant programs with major compliance requirements for a decade and I'm not qualified because I don't have a business degree? Seriously?

Yes that is correct you are not qualified because that is the requirement set by the business or org.