1659
Criteria
(slrpnk.net)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2024
1659 points (98.1% liked)
Microblog Memes
6016 readers
2571 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
As someone who has read a lot of cvs, i wish more people thought like this. We didn't list the requirements just for fun. Quit wasting people's time by applying for stuff when you don't match the requirements
As someone who has applied to a lot of jobs, I wish more job posters thought like you. It would take me 1 minute to find you a job posting for an IT position where they ask for a minimum number of years using a technology that hasn't even existed for that many years.
I think this happens because some manager says "we want an expert in this technology" but then the job poster slaps some arbitrary number on that like "oh 5-10 years should be enough for an expert" with no awareness that it's a brand new technology.
Yeah. That's being a fucking idiot and has nothing to do with my post
It would take 15 seconds to look up " release date" and use that as a reference.
Bro... Your asking HR. Curb your expectations.
Yeah, don't ask me my opinion of HR. Biggest boot lickers in the entire universe, change my mind.
I mean to be fair, it's a struggle between terms like "expert" or "senior" being too ambiguous and a time interval of experience being a poor indicator of actual proficiency. The corporate world doesn't care though and ties the two together as a general rule because middle management isn't smart enough to tell the difference. Thus, it boils down to "we're hiring a senior level, it takes X years to reach that at our company, thus we expect someone to have that many years of experience at any other company doing a job similar to what we do". Some HR peon then words it like "you need X years of experience using [exact technologies we expect applicant to use]".
To tie this back to the OP: Most (?) people understand this is what is happening in basically all job postings where they list years of required experience to match their expected proficiency (i.e. I'm as good as someone who has been doing this for X years), but there are people who interpret this literally and think that if they have X-0.1 years of experience in that exact thing that they will be automatically rejected because it said X is required and they do not have X.
Thank you for your valuable insight.
Blame all the companies with ridiculously high requirements just to hire people who don't meet all of them. It's a common advice to apply even when you don't meet all the reqs, because it works out so often.
Yeah fair, that's a shitty behaviour as well