Venting about job applicants

[kranky]

I'm involved with filling a job opening. People must apply online where people upload a resume and a cover letter. The job dimensions and qualifications are clearly stated on various job sites.

There are 18 applicants so far, of which exactly 2 have the required qualifications.

Three others do not fully meet the qualifications but provided compelling cover letters that directly addressed the position requirements along with a resume that could sway me to at least interview them to see how they would convince me they could do the job if they had some OJT. That's worked out for me before.

The other 13 had no business applying. They don't have the qualifications, their background is not relevant, and provided no explanation to support why they think they would be a good fit. Some of those didn't even provide a cover letter.

This is why companies use automated systems to screen applicants - too many people applying for jobs they aren't qualified for and they don't even take the time to offer an justification. If an applicant was referred by a respected employee, that is huge and can overcome a lot of apparent shortcomings. If Bob tells me the person he referred to me would be able to learn the job very quickly, and would be 100% committed to getting up to speed, and I know Bob is trustworthy, I'm going to seriously consider that person even if I might not have otherwise.

So my point is please invest time in networking so when you are applying for something, you can leverage being referred by someone or know people who can alert you to positions. Join trade groups, local civic groups, volunteer at the food bank, whatever. Those things are run by people with connections and it's not hard to volunteer for something where you find yourself working with someone on the Board of Directors. Impress that person after a little time, and you have a great new personal reference.

 

[Cogman]

The problem is that many companies for a long time have either been too heavy handed (nobody has those qualifications) or have simply put the qualifications there to dissuade some applicants.

How is a job applicant to know that you really do mean they must be a/b/c when many other companies don't care?

Hell, even in your description, you are saying "But we would take them if they gave us a good reason why they don't meet the qualifications". Is it any wonder that applicants ignore required qualifications?

 

[acheron]

I don't know what type of job opening you have, but I know sometimes recruiters will just spam out resumes to every opening whether the person actually fits or not. They don't care. So the ostensible applicant may not even know.

 

[Merad]

"Wanted: 5+ years experience in this new-ish technology that was invented 2 years ago"...

Yeah, most job requirements are so very meaningful.

 

[kranky]

The problem is that many companies for a long time have either been too heavy handed (nobody has those qualifications) or have simply put the qualifications there to dissuade some applicants.

How is a job applicant to know that you really do mean they must be a/b/c when many other companies don't care?

Hell, even in your description, you are saying "But we would take them if they gave us a good reason why they don't meet the qualifications". Is it any wonder that applicants ignore required qualifications?

I don't understand why they think they don't need to offer some explanation (provide that "good reason") when applying for a position where they don't meet the qualifications. The impression it gives is "I didn't read the requirements and didn't bother tailoring my application data to the position." Makes me think they are lazy and/or can't comprehend English.

One example: one of the applicants who didn't meet the requirements sent a cover letter that explained exactly how her prior experience and education would be relevant to many aspects of the job and the industry, and explained how she would address lacking one qualification she didn't have. I can tell she understands more about the position than we actually explained and how it fits in to the bigger picture. She already is prepared to address one shortcoming.

 

[kranky]

I don't know what type of job opening you have, but I know sometimes recruiters will just spam out resumes to every opening whether the person actually fits or not. They don't care. So the ostensible applicant may not even know.

Good point - I need to ask the HR rep where these applicants came from. If the meaningless ones came from the same recruiter, I'll make a fuss over that.

 

[sourceninja]

The problem is that many companies for a long time have either been too heavy handed (nobody has those qualifications) or have simply put the qualifications there to dissuade some applicants.

How is a job applicant to know that you really do mean they must be a/b/c when many other companies don't care?

Hell, even in your description, you are saying "But we would take them if they gave us a good reason why they don't meet the qualifications". Is it any wonder that applicants ignore required qualifications?

Exactly, in the IT field this is even worse. One of my old employers is looking for a groovy developer. The only skills you really need are good interpersonal communication skills and experience programming on a intermediate level with any language. They will teach the rest.

The reality of the job posting is they want someone with 5+ years of experience in a list of programming languages (php, java, bash, groovy, javascript, etc), system support experience, Windows server 2003 - 2012r2, RHEL and ubuntu admin exp, HP switch and router exp, and vmware management experience. Plus they want you to have a BS degree.

To top it off, they want to pay mid 40's in an area where the average salary is mid 70's. They are wondering why it's hard to find qualified applicants.

 

[TheSlamma]

you have 18 and are complaining?

please... sift though 500 or so with the same ratio of qualifying candidates and then get back to us with a real rant

 

[Cogman]

I don't understand why they think they don't need to offer some explanation (provide that "good reason") when applying for a position where they don't meet the qualifications. The impression it gives is "I didn't read the requirements and didn't bother tailoring my application data to the position." Makes me think they are lazy and/or can't comprehend English.

One example: one of the applicants who didn't meet the requirements sent a cover letter that explained exactly how her prior experience and education would be relevant to many aspects of the job and the industry, and explained how she would address lacking one qualification she didn't have. I can tell she understands more about the position than we actually explained and how it fits in to the bigger picture. She already is prepared to address one shortcoming.

Quite simply because many companies DON'T look for the explantation. People get jobs all the time without meeting the postings requirements or even explaining why they don't meet the requirements. How is a job applicant supposed to know that yours is a company who really needs to have that explanation?

It isn't your fault or your companies fault. It is more the fact that we have entered an era where companies put up BS requirements and job applicants ignore those requirements because they are BS. Most companies will at least take a look at most of the applicants and quite often hire even though the applicant doesn't meet all the requirements (even without an explanation).

 

[Insomniator]

Exactly, in the IT field this is even worse. One of my old employers is looking for a groovy developer. The only skills you really need are good interpersonal communication skills and experience programming on a intermediate level with any language. They will teach the rest.

The reality of the job posting is they want someone with 5+ years of experience in a list of programming languages (php, java, bash, groovy, javascript, etc), system support experience, Windows server 2003 - 2012r2, RHEL and ubuntu admin exp, HP switch and router exp, and vmware management experience. Plus they want you to have a BS degree.

To top it off, they want to pay mid 40's in an area where the average salary is mid 70's. They are wondering why it's hard to find qualified applicants.

Why do IT positions so often list every possible IT aspect in even the most basic/entry level of jobs? Level 1 Help Desk -- 5 yrs exp with server 2003-12, 3 versions of linux, backup software, cisco routing, citrix, novel, windows for work groups, print server, group policy, experience with ENIAC a plus, BS degree, MCITP cert, $13/hr.

Why can't they just list what the position will probably actually be doing -- put shortcuts on desktops and replace dirty keyboards.

It often seems like they really are just trying to filter out people that are unsure, so of course people will eventually ignore them.

 

[kranky]

As odd as it sounds, I could actually understand if unqualified people apply for jobs thinking maybe nobody else will apply and they'll get it by default.

 

[mmntech]

"Wanted: 5+ years experience in this new-ish technology that was invented 2 years ago"...

Yeah, most job requirements are so very meaningful.

When I was fresh out of college, most of the entry level jobs I came across wanted a "minimum two years experience". I guess they expect you to intern (ie work for free) for two years so they don't have to pay for training. Doesn't put food on the table though.

 

[Anubis]

Exactly, in the IT field this is even worse. One of my old employers is looking for a groovy developer. The only skills you really need are good interpersonal communication skills and experience programming on a intermediate level with any language. They will teach the rest.

The reality of the job posting is they want someone with 5+ years of experience in a list of programming languages (php, java, bash, groovy, javascript, etc), system support experience, Windows server 2003 - 2012r2, RHEL and ubuntu admin exp, HP switch and router exp, and vmware management experience. Plus they want you to have a BS degree.

To top it off, they want to pay mid 40's in an area where the average salary is mid 70's. They are wondering why it's hard to find qualified applicants.

lol this is true, saw a ton of it when I was looking for a job, wanted 15+ years of exp Masters required PHD preferred. paying peanuts

 

[rsbennett00]

I sympathize with you completely. Our casting calls always say 'no implants' and we have women sending portfolio's that either thought we were kidding or thought they could fool us, ha!

 

[SunnyD]

I'd like to vent about recruiters and in-house HR types. Do you guys ever even read resumes or candidate profiles off search sites or LinkedIn before you send along an invitation to apply for a position?

I can't tell you how many emails and phone calls I've gotten over the last several months for positions which sound genuinely interesting, except one or more of the listed job requirements are clearly a major skill set that I have little or no relevant experience in.

Seriously folks, I know you have access to my resume because I posted it on said sites which you're contacting me from...

 

[takeru]

it can be problems from both sides i would say. companies recruiting listing every single thing possible that they desire for a new candidate just in case, and candidates apply to positions because of this thought as well. my company does this. they created a new group to help filter support calls and tickets. the requirements listed for the position i would say point to someone with middle high to high experience in multiple fields with many years in the industry. in reality someone with basic helpdesk experience and not half a brain could easily fill the position.

 

[Sonikku]

Businesses these days bullshit us so hard on the requirements. I mean 5 years experience for entry level jobs? Seriously??

 

[shortylickens]

Hey dickhole!


Plenty of us have been applying for jobs at which we're fully qualified. And you never fucking get back to us.

So eat a dick.

 

[ultimatebob]

Out of those 13 crap applications, about 7 or 8 of them were probably just submitted as proof that the person is looking for a job so they can keep claiming unemployment benefits.

 

[ultimatebob]

I'd like to vent about recruiters and in-house HR types. Do you guys ever even read resumes or candidate profiles off search sites or LinkedIn before you send along an invitation to apply for a position?

I can't tell you how many emails and phone calls I've gotten over the last several months for positions which sound genuinely interesting, except one or more of the listed job requirements are clearly a major skill set that I have little or no relevant experience in.

Seriously folks, I know you have access to my resume because I posted it on said sites which you're contacting me from...

I think that a lot of those "recruiters" are just spam bots looking for resume key words. If you have just ONE of the keywords they are looking for, you'll get an e-mail.

Hell, I get job postings for Java developers all of the time, even though I'm not a programmer. I do support and test Java applications, though, and simply having the Java keyword in my old resume or LinkedIn profile was good enough for their spambot to harass me.

 

[MrDudeMan]

When I was fresh out of college, most of the entry level jobs I came across wanted a "minimum two years experience". I guess they expect you to intern (ie work for free) for two years so they don't have to pay for training. Doesn't put food on the table though.

That's a great weed out mechanism that I personally agree with 100%. If you weren't able to acquire any experience, for whatever reason, it's not my obligation to give you special treatment when other people were able to do so. If I don't have to train someone, or train them less, they're worth way more than a person with zero experience even if their educational backgrounds are the same.

 

[Anubis]

internships only work out for those who really know exactly what they want to do

for the other 99% it does not

 

[smackababy]

That's a great weed out mechanism that I personally agree with 100%. If you weren't able to acquire any experience, for whatever reason, it's not my obligation to give you special treatment when other people were able to do so. If I don't have to train someone, or train them less, they're worth way more than a person with zero experience even if their educational backgrounds are the same.

Entry level implies experience isn't required. While, I could understand hiring someone with experience over someone without, having it as a requirement defeats the purpose of it being entry level. If someone possess the skills required for the job, regardless of professional honing / training, they should be able to perform an entry level job. And, especially, when it comes to things like programming, there is going to be a learning period, regardless of experience. Every project and program has different requirements and business rules that have to be learned. I am not devaluing experience or even internships (they are a huge help, even if just to get actual experience outside of your parents house and in the work force), but they aren't required in entry level positions.


Also, as far as "unqualified" people applying, chances are they feel they can do the job or fulfill the roles required. And, as a bonus, since they aren't qualified, you can offer to pay them less with that excuse.

 

[Scarpozzi]

My gripe is when you get applications that are tailored to the job description. Then you interview the people and they appear to know about the position and what it's going to be....you hire them and realize 2 weeks later that they are hacks and don't know anything.

I've not personally hired anyone like that, but have gotten stuck working with people who interviewed well, but couldn't do the job and ended up dragging down everyone else.

 

[smackababy]

My gripe is when you get applications that are tailored to the job description. Then you interview the people and they appear to know about the position and what it's going to be....you hire them and realize 2 weeks later that they are hacks and don't know anything.

I've not personally hired anyone like that, but have gotten stuck working with people who interviewed well, but couldn't do the job and ended up dragging down everyone else.

Should get better interviewers then. But, even then, it is going to be hard to weed those out 100%. Some people are just really good at interviewing and can slip by.