3 ms·

I don't think it's dishonest to apply for a job you don't meet the listed qualifications for. As long as you don't represent yourself via your résumé or in your

I don't think it's dishonest to apply for a job you don't meet the listed qualifications for. As long as you don't represent yourself via your résumé or in your other communication as having experience or qualifications that you don't have, it's the equivalent of saying, "I know you want AAA, but would you take AA instead?" It's the same as offering a lower-than-asking-price bid on a car or house. Nearly all business interaction is a form of negotiation. If you look at a job description and feel that you'd be able to succeed at it, that's usually enough to get started. Clicking "Apply" doesn't mean you are certifying that you meet the minimum requirements. It simply means you'd like to be considered for the job. The worst that could happen is you've wasted somebody's time (which is true of probably 90% or more of all interviews anyway). In my 15 years in software, I've interviewed at probably a couple dozen different places. Not once have I been asked to promise that I meet the listed minimum qualifications prior to submitting an application.

koilke 5y ago
It may be that de facto these are not requirements, but for some of us who take things at face value and feel dishonest if we apply to something that has requirements, it is not that simple. It becomes more complex when you are of deontological preferences where you may have a universal rule forbidding you to do anything that you may deem misleading or dishonest. Although, I do not engage in judging others much, I would feel a strong disdain toward disregarding the minimum requirements because it supposes that I suppose that the other person is not 100% honest/clear in their intention and certain set of values may forbid some people in what I guess may be called ''bad faith'' i.e. presupposing that people are dishonest without having a viable reason for thinking so. Well these are just some thoughts but I have a huge mental block in going against requirements, rules etc based upon the idea that the you presuppose that the other person is dishonest because then it would follow that one lives by the presupposition that everyone is being dishonest until otherwise. Of course, for more utilitarian oriented people there may be more room for flexibility. However, in a pluralistic society I would value a wide array of ethics compatible in a free and fair market which respects fundamental human rights.

koilke 5y ago

It may be that de facto these are not requirements, but for some of us who take things at face value and feel dishonest if we apply to something that has requirements, it is not that simple. It becomes more complex when you are of deontological preferences where you may have a universal rule forbidding you to do anything that you may deem misleading or dishonest. Although, I do not engage in judging others much, I would feel a strong disdain toward disregarding the minimum requirements because it supposes that I suppose that the other person is not 100% honest/clear in their intention and certain set of values may forbid some people in what I guess may be called ''bad faith'' i.e. presupposing that people are dishonest without having a viable reason for thinking so. Well these are just some thoughts but I have a huge mental block in going against requirements, rules etc based upon the idea that the you presuppose that the other person is dishonest because then it would follow that one lives by the presupposition that everyone is being dishonest until otherwise. Of course, for more utilitarian oriented people there may be more room for flexibility. However, in a pluralistic society I would value a wide array of ethics compatible in a free and fair market which respects fundamental human rights.