I tend to agree. The article resonated with my experiences for the most part, but some lines felt out of place, such as: > Taking one of them would have set

I tend to agree. The article resonated with my experiences for the most part, but some lines felt out of place, such as: > Taking one of them would have set me back in my career since I would not have the skills I would have needed to do the job well. There's a massive disparity in most jobs between experience demanded for, and (potential) experience on offer to be gained from, the particular role. When I've sat on the recruiter side of the desk I've always been a bit wary about people who have a superset of the skills required for a job -- they're going to be very bored, very quickly. When I've sat on the other side of the desk I've had trouble verbalising, to the panel, the benefits of considering a candidate who has 70-90% of the skills or experience they're looking for.