Anonymous wrote:Do the experience requirements actually make sense? I've frequently seen stupid job postings in IT where they ask for something like 10 years experience in a technology that's only existed for 5 years.

Conversely I also frequently get recruiters contacting me about "you'd be a perfect candidate for 'x' position" which is an entry level position when I have well over 25 years experience and already make 3x what they pay.

It all just tells me there are a lot of people in HR and recruiting who have absolutely no clue what they are doing.

My friend who is a manager at a fintech company referred me as their company is growing. And the HR person immediately reached out to me for an entry level position match with 30% of my current pay hah.
(My friend had identical background as me and I have held manager position for years too).

Anonymous wrote:Interested in the responses. I'm a few years into my career (about 4) and seem to fall awkwardly in between the entry level jobs looking for around 2 yrs and more senior jobs looking for 5+ yrs. The entry level jobs are always eager to talk to me but can never match or beat current salary, and the more senior jobs will interview me for weeks only to say I'm too junior. What gives?

This age bracket is actually the easiest to place (senior associate, pre manager), I have more YOE but it’s a pigeonhole.

Do the experience requirements actually make sense? I've frequently seen stupid job postings in IT where they ask for something like 10 years experience in a technology that's only existed for 5 years.

Conversely I also frequently get recruiters contacting me about "you'd be a perfect candidate for 'x' position" which is an entry level position when I have well over 25 years experience and already make 3x what they pay.

It all just tells me there are a lot of people in HR and recruiting who have absolutely no clue what they are doing.

Yes. We are a small engineering company so no HR screening. I look at the resume and type of experience. Happy to take someone with 4 years exp doing something that aligns with our work over someone who did 5-6 years thats not as useful for our position. I find that people with 3-4 years' can be really good. Someone already taught them how to work and they are not too green and have a better idea of what they want out of their career and where their technical strengths and interests are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a physician at a university hospital. We routinely advertise for positions that “require at least 3 to 5 years of experience.” And then in the end we have to hire a new grad fresh out of fellowship. So go ahead and apply.

Why is this done? To justify low pay but make it seem like you're doing them a favor?

I've seen it happen because they can't actually afford a candidate with the experience that they want

Anonymous wrote:I’m a physician at a university hospital. We routinely advertise for positions that “require at least 3 to 5 years of experience.” And then in the end we have to hire a new grad fresh out of fellowship. So go ahead and apply.

Why is this done? To justify low pay but make it seem like you're doing them a favor?

I’m a physician at a university hospital. We routinely advertise for positions that “require at least 3 to 5 years of experience.” And then in the end we have to hire a new grad fresh out of fellowship. So go ahead and apply.

As a govt contractor, we're stuck with the contract requirements. So if it says three years of experience, we have to have three years, no matter how good the person is or how much better they would be at the job than the person who has three years and one month. It's really a stupid system.

It would never make it past our screening process BUT if you had an in and someone could approach the manager directly, the manager would pull the resume out of the pile before it got booted. Has been a long standing point of contention between managers/directors and HR.

Yes -- there are studies showing that women don't apply for jobs unless they meet every single criteria listed and men apply even if they only meet half the requirements. Men get a lot of jobs because of that.

Some roles are tough to fill. So yes, if we’re hard up for candidates we will look at someone junior or with less experience. Never let a Job Description experience requirement hold you back. Apply for the role if you meet 60% of the criteria. I’m talking to you Women who experience imposter syndrome. Statistically men will apply if they meet 50% of the job description. Women will hold out until they meet all the criteria. (Which is why we have so much work to do!).

For the early career folks, keep reaching for the next level. You’re too young to go lateral and you won’t be satisfied if you do. With junior candidates, the conversation behind closed doors goes like this. Well, how junior was s/he? ... are they coachable? Are they willing to learn? Do you (hiring manager) have time to coach / help / guide him her? How long would it take to close the gap (is it 6 months or 2 years)? The thing is, you just don’t know how they are perceiving your candidacy... you might be ‘a great potential talent, just a little too junior’ or ‘completely wet behind the ears, no f’ing way’.... just keep reaching and applying, the interview practice is good. Also if a role is posted for more than 100 days, we aren’t finding the right candidate, so you have a better shot.

I’ve seen posting that literally require more years of familiarity with a computer language than it has existed for.

Interested in the responses. I'm a few years into my career (about 4) and seem to fall awkwardly in between the entry level jobs looking for around 2 yrs and more senior jobs looking for 5+ yrs. The entry level jobs are always eager to talk to me but can never match or beat current salary, and the more senior jobs will interview me for weeks only to say I'm too junior. What gives?

A person with less than the required experience would never make it past our HR, so we would never even get a chance to look at the resume.

Not talking about someone with 5 years of experience applying for a job that "requires" 20, obviously - but if an applicant is couple/few years off the requirement is that a major ding/automatic write-off for you?