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

[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?

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

So short sighted! And look around... this myopic attitude got us here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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

So short sighted! And look around... this myopic attitude got us here. [/quote

got us where? We have 1000s of applicants, basic supply and demand. I have to weed out people. If we don't have any applicants we can dial down the requirements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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

So short sighted! And look around... this myopic attitude got us here.

got us where? We have 1000s of applicants, basic supply and demand. I have to weed out people. If we don't have any applicants we can dial down the requirements.

[Anonymous]

So you only want to interview those two people for the job?

Okay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It probably took, what, a couple hours to filter from 100 to 2 candidates? Not seeing what the big deal here is. Sure, people should be honest, but some of the job descriptions can sound very aspirational so I can understand why candidates might just want to make sure they're not weeded out prematurely in case some of the requirements weren't intended to be strictly enforced.

The title of the Job has it as a senior level of that type of technology and so does the first bullet of years of experience? I honestly feel like it immediately disqualifies them for not paying attention or lying.

When was the last time you yourself looked for a job? I suspect it was a long time ago.

Hiring managers put everything and the kitchen sink into job descriptions, so people have learned to ignore most of it. It's the fault of companies for doing that for so many years. They have trained job seekers to ignore them.

[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?

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

But as a weed out it's terrible. I'd rather have the person with the MPA and the direct experience than an MBA without the actual hands-on. This PP is smart to wiggle around that degree specificity. The hiring folks are stupid to roadblock it that way. They probably don't deserve her experience after all. Hire the MBA and they can run a theoretical framework on fro-yo franchises on software they learned senior year.

[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

Stop whining, OP. At least you have a job. For now.

[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?

+1

Boom!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I was thinking your job sounds interesting and might be a good fit for me (I'm a multi degree engineer who has worked mostly in development and strategy). Then I saw the salary. The person who wrote "pay isn't actually that great" nailed it. That's really low.

[Anonymous]

OP, make sure you conduct a technical interview. My management team actually hired those "liars" due to rapid and improper interview screening, then a rush to hire them before they found other jobs,

As a result, we ended up with several "data analysts" who didn't even have a clue and were lazy. One of our well-qualified data analysts was caught watching movies on YouTube (when he claimed to be training).

[Anonymous]

The one I was most amazed by was the job description requiring 15 years minimum Kubernetes experience - at a time when Kubernetes had not even existed for 15 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It probably took, what, a couple hours to filter from 100 to 2 candidates? Not seeing what the big deal here is. Sure, people should be honest, but some of the job descriptions can sound very aspirational so I can understand why candidates might just want to make sure they're not weeded out prematurely in case some of the requirements weren't intended to be strictly enforced.

+1

God forbid OP has to spend a few minutes actually reading a resume a candidate likely spent at least an hour on. I’ll bet doesn’t spare a thought for the wasted time of the dozens of applicants she has her AI “weed out” for nonsense.

You can always tell who the bad employers are. I wish they’d out themselves like this in public! So much better to avoid these.

[Anonymous]

Idgaf what Op says. I’m using the Trump method: lie lie lie lie!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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

But as a weed out it's terrible. I'd rather have the person with the MPA and the direct experience than an MBA without the actual hands-on. This PP is smart to wiggle around that degree specificity. The hiring folks are stupid to roadblock it that way. They probably don't deserve her experience after all. Hire the MBA and they can run a theoretical framework on fro-yo franchises on software they learned senior year.

Why not have both the degree and experience

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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

But as a weed out it's terrible. I'd rather have the person with the MPA and the direct experience than an MBA without the actual hands-on. This PP is smart to wiggle around that degree specificity. The hiring folks are stupid to roadblock it that way. They probably don't deserve her experience after all. Hire the MBA and they can run a theoretical framework on fro-yo franchises on software they learned senior year.

Why not have both the degree and experience

Because requiring an undergrad business degree (not even an MBA) is a dumb way to weed out experienced candidates for a position like grant management? Maybe you do because you want to throw out more resumes with less work, but let's not pretend it's actually helping.

Again, I work in the field, this is not a standard requirement. It's not like requiring an accounting degree to be an accountant, or a law degree to be a lawyer.