4 ms·

Just a reminder that most requirements on job postings can be ignored. You can still apply and get through pretty often if you don't fit the requirements perfec

Just a reminder that most requirements on job postings can be ignored. You can still apply and get through pretty often if you don't fit the requirements perfectly. There's almost no downside to applying.

mywittyname 5y ago
It can be discouraging to apply for jobs and not get even a callback.
- chongli 5y ago
  That goes down with volume. If you apply to a large number of jobs then you won't worry about those who didn't call you back because you'll be too busy scheduling and attending interviews. Of course, if you apply to a large number of jobs and don't get any callbacks then that's a strong signal that you either need to update your resume, update your credentials, or seek employment in another field.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
jstx1 5y ago
In turn this gives companies a reason to apply strong filters just so they can reduce their shortlist to a manageable size.
- yupper32 5y ago
  Yup. But at the same time, in the current environment, the person who applies to 100 places will more often be better off than the person who applies to 10 places. If you need a job, you gotta play the game. Mass applying is the current meta game.
  - dvogel 5y ago
    While I don't advocate for mass applying, I have always believed that most top candidates for a position will only hit approximately 5/8 desired experience/skills points. As Carmack says in the thread, the labor force simply has a perpetually non-optimal distribution of skills. After seeing it from the hiring side for the past 7 years, I can also say that there's usually a few extra unlisted criteria that would more than substitute for the skills you don't match on. The content of job listings is largely true to the desires of the hiring manager but also incorporates some organizational inertia. It takes a while to get new technologies incorporated into the practices of recruiting offices. Many managers are usually informally hiring for skills that have not yet achieved enough of a foothold to be a screening criteria.

mywittyname 5y ago

It can be discouraging to apply for jobs and not get even a callback.

chongli 5y ago
That goes down with volume. If you apply to a large number of jobs then you won't worry about those who didn't call you back because you'll be too busy scheduling and attending interviews. Of course, if you apply to a large number of jobs and don't get any callbacks then that's a strong signal that you either need to update your resume, update your credentials, or seek employment in another field.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

jstx1 5y ago

In turn this gives companies a reason to apply strong filters just so they can reduce their shortlist to a manageable size.

yupper32 5y ago
Yup. But at the same time, in the current environment, the person who applies to 100 places will more often be better off than the person who applies to 10 places. If you need a job, you gotta play the game. Mass applying is the current meta game.
- dvogel 5y ago
  While I don't advocate for mass applying, I have always believed that most top candidates for a position will only hit approximately 5/8 desired experience/skills points. As Carmack says in the thread, the labor force simply has a perpetually non-optimal distribution of skills. After seeing it from the hiring side for the past 7 years, I can also say that there's usually a few extra unlisted criteria that would more than substitute for the skills you don't match on. The content of job listings is largely true to the desires of the hiring manager but also incorporates some organizational inertia. It takes a while to get new technologies incorporated into the practices of recruiting offices. Many managers are usually informally hiring for skills that have not yet achieved enough of a foothold to be a screening criteria.