One way I would recommend is to look at these candidates with an extra variable to your consideration: value add. Entry-level support can often be a good pipel

One way I would recommend is to look at these candidates with an extra variable to your consideration: value add. Entry-level support can often be a good pipeline into development or operations for persons that satisfy more than the laundry list of 'must haves'. Example: Candidate A: Older person with years of industry experience at higher levels, outstanding list of accomplishments with a couple of former companies that just announced major gains on the NYSD. He's been exposed to all aspects of your business, some many atmospheres above support. Candidate B: Younger candidate fresh from college, virtually no professional industry experience, maybe two or three awarded assignments his/her senior year, maybe they've listed a github profile on their resume and you see the candidate has forked and contributed to lots of repositories. Who do you hire? The veteran professional who has seen it all, or the younger candidate you can groom in the organization and help the team grow organically? Think of the Indianapolis Colts; for the longevity of the franchise continuing it's successful ways, the decision of going with reliable and familiar (Peyton Manning), which came with rigidness and inflexibilities with a rost full of aging players versus building a new team with individuals that can weather the long haul and grow as members of the organization familiar with the quirks of keeping the team moving forward (Andrew Luck). I'm two years removed from active recruiting, but that's a broad overview of the style I took.