Venting about job applicants

[Genx87]

Why do IT positions so often list every possible IT aspect in even the most basic/entry level of jobs? Level 1 Help Desk -- 5 yrs exp with server 2003-12, 3 versions of linux, backup software, cisco routing, citrix, novel, windows for work groups, print server, group policy, experience with ENIAC a plus, BS degree, MCITP cert, $13/hr.

Why can't they just list what the position will probably actually be doing -- put shortcuts on desktops and replace dirty keyboards.

It often seems like they really are just trying to filter out people that are unsure, so of course people will eventually ignore them.

Because often times HR creates the listing. Get limited feedback from the IT staff on their requirements. HR person doesnt know any better.

In the world of IT. Requirements can sometimes be real and often times are BS. If I look at a job description and then see requirements that actually match the description. Then I will make sure I am close or not bother. But so many descriptions of a job dont line up with their requirements. So why would they expect people to meet their requirements?

 

[Genx87]

This isn't the actual example, but illustrates the point almost exactly.

Let's say the job is Construction Estimator. The requirements are:

- 1 year experience with HeavyBid construction estimating software
- Bachelor's degree preferred

That's it. One year experience with a niche software package, and you don't even have to have a college degree. Someone who's used that specific software package for a year is a pretty good bet to be qualified.

The job dimensions are:
- Prepares bid estimates from information provided by Senior Estimators, using HeavyBid software
- Ensures all subcontractor estimates are properly recorded
- Incorporate payment milestones and provide cash flow analysis
- Provide staffing profiles to Senior Estimators
- Assesses estimates for inconsistency
- Good interpersonal skills
- Ability to use Microsoft Word, Excel and Outlook

Again, 1 year experience with a specialized software tool is the key requirement. If someone applies and has experience with a different construction estimating tool, I would consider them based on how well they can talk about how the tool gets the job done (not what icons to click) - do they understand what the tool is doing and what the output means?

An example of the nonqualified applications I got - I have an app from a person who has a marketing degree and their two years of job experience is as a warehouse manager. No cover letter. There is no magic that enables them to do construction estimating with zero knowledge or experience in the industry or experience with the specialized software. A cover letter would at least give them an opportunity to make their case. Without one, I don't even know what they were thinking.

Eh if 1 year is all you require. Couldn't you do just about as well as somebody who has never used it and train them?

 

[kranky]

Eh if 1 year is all you require. Couldn't you do just about as well as somebody who has never used it and train them?

Good question. The reason for requiring a year's experience is we need someone who can start contributing quickly. Being trained to use the software tool only helps get the work done - the tool doesn't do the work. To extend the construction estimator analogy, if someone has no experience, they won't recognize that something is wrong if the estimate calls for renting 3 inorbulators for 6 weeks if the job crew has only one person who can operate an inorbulator. With experience, you know to ask "you said you're going to get 3 inorbulators - how many people on the crew can run one?" and not simply input what you are given. Or someone doesn't have any flagmen in the estimate but you always have seen flagmen used for that kind of project. The software tool is complex and is very useful when used properly, but it doesn't do everything.

There is a need to understand what goes into using the tool and those who have a year's experience with the tool have worked through those things.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

not for nothing if I have all the skills required for the job, it sounds like I'm probably already in that role....wouldn't I want to do something I can at least learn or grow from?

Also, seems odd you would be promoting networking (who you know) over resume content (what you know) when you seemingly place the most importance on who has the most buzzwords matching your checklist on their resume.

Furthermore, knowing that some machine is sorting out applicants anyways who has the time to write a custom cover letter for every job they apply to? If I'm going to take that time I'm going to direct message the recruiter or hiring manager on linkedin or wherever.

 

[MixMasterTang]

not for nothing if I have all the skills required for the job, it sounds like I'm probably already in that role....wouldn't I want to do something I can at least learn or grow from?

I thought you disappeared, haven't seen you post in a long time!

 

[Ns1]

Furthermore, knowing that some machine is sorting out applicants anyways who has the time to write a custom cover letter for every job they apply to?

I most certainly spend the extra 30 minutes to tailor my resume and cover letter for the particular job I'm applying for.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

I most certainly spend the extra 30 minutes to tailor my resume and cover letter for the particular job I'm applying for.

Just some preliminary math 100 applications x 30 minutes each.....that's time I don't have.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

I thought you disappeared, haven't seen you post in a long time!

still lurk from time to time :awe:

 

[glenn1]

Good question. The reason for requiring a year's experience is we need someone who can start contributing quickly. Being trained to use the software tool only helps get the work done - the tool doesn't do the work. To extend the construction estimator analogy, if someone has no experience, they won't recognize that something is wrong if the estimate calls for renting 3 inorbulators for 6 weeks if the job crew has only one person who can operate an inorbulator. With experience, you know to ask "you said you're going to get 3 inorbulators - how many people on the crew can run one?" and not simply input what you are given. Or someone doesn't have any flagmen in the estimate but you always have seen flagmen used for that kind of project. The software tool is complex and is very useful when used properly, but it doesn't do everything.

There is a need to understand what goes into using the tool and those who have a year's experience with the tool have worked through those things.

So basically you're requesting someone to have a year experience in lieu of simply defining the business rules for an estimate? The business rules you should have already documented and given to the hire, not to mention built into the tool as a control?

 

[smackababy]

I most certainly spend the extra 30 minutes to tailor my resume and cover letter for the particular job I'm applying for.

Depending on your field, it shouldn't even take that long.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

So basically you're requesting someone to have a year experience in lieu of simply defining the business rules for an estimate? The business rules you should have already documented and given to the hire, not to mention built into the tool as a control?

You live in that perfect world I've been hearing about :biggrin:

 

[PieIsAwesome]

...and OP here's one of your 13.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Ns1]

Just some preliminary math 100 applications x 30 minutes each.....that's time I don't have.

I usually only have to do one

 

[SunnyD]

Good question. The reason for requiring a year's experience is we need someone who can start contributing quickly. Being trained to use the software tool only helps get the work done - the tool doesn't do the work. To extend the construction estimator analogy, if someone has no experience, they won't recognize that something is wrong if the estimate calls for renting 3 inorbulators for 6 weeks if the job crew has only one person who can operate an inorbulator. With experience, you know to ask "you said you're going to get 3 inorbulators - how many people on the crew can run one?" and not simply input what you are given. Or someone doesn't have any flagmen in the estimate but you always have seen flagmen used for that kind of project. The software tool is complex and is very useful when used properly, but it doesn't do everything.

There is a need to understand what goes into using the tool and those who have a year's experience with the tool have worked through those things.

So what you're telling me is you want someone that has already been highly trained at the expense of some other company to do exactly what you're asking for more than likely at a fraction of what they already make with their current employer. And more than likely due to the amount of experience they have you will more than likely pass them over rubber stamping their application with a "Gonna want too much $$$". Amirite?

If you want to further your company and the prospects of getting someone who might actually be a career guy, start looking a little outside of the requirements. If you happen to get that one guy that fits the mold, great. But if not, don't bitch. Especially not on low req jobs that are going to be trainable like this one.

 

[MrDudeMan]

So what you're telling me is you want someone that has already been highly trained at the expense of some other company to do exactly what you're asking for more than likely at a fraction of what they already make with their current employer. And more than likely due to the amount of experience they have you will more than likely pass them over rubber stamping their application with a "Gonna want too much $$$". Amirite?

If you want to further your company and the prospects of getting someone who might actually be a career guy, start looking a little outside of the requirements. If you happen to get that one guy that fits the mold, great. But if not, don't bitch. Especially not on low req jobs that are going to be trainable like this one.

Edit: didn't finish reading your post before I responded. Still, though, who cares what he posts? No one is forced to apply for and accept his job. As the employer, you may get what you want for a good deal or you may not. I think kranky understands this. With that said, his request really isn't unreasonable... at all.

 

[SunnyD]

Edit: didn't finish reading your post before I responded. Still, though, who cares what he posts? No one is forced to apply for and accept his job. It's like shopping for groceries with a coupon. You may get what you want for a good deal or you may not. I think kranky understands this. With that said, his request really isn't unreasonable... at all.

Obviously, since OP said he received 2 qualified applications. Of course the question remains why he's bitching about doing his job in the first place. Now if he were filling a position for, say, an astrophysicist and getting resumes from people with only retail sales experience and zero education, then maybe we'd have a relevant thread.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Obviously, since OP said he received 2 qualified applications. Of course the question remains why he's bitching about doing his job in the first place. Now if he were filling a position for, say, an astrophysicist and getting resumes from people with only retail sales experience and zero education, then maybe we'd have a relevant thread.

Have you ever needed to hire people for your own business? What you're probably not getting from his post is all the major PITA of the whole process that can never be escaped. It's really frustrating to deal with idiots who want the job you posted even though they have no business applying for it. I'm about to go through this again and I'm dreading it.

There's no perfect solution. You either post a job with low qualifications and get 11ty billion responses, which will cause you to miss the diamond in the rough, or you elevate the qualifications to prevent the bottom of the barrel applicants from wasting your time. The latter method has other implications, but there's no way to do it perfectly. Trying to score a good employee (the latter option) is the only sensible option for a business.

 

[glenn1]

Have you ever needed to hire people for your own business? What you're probably not getting from his post is all the major PITA of the whole process that can never be escaped. It's really frustrating to deal with idiots who want the job you posted even though they have no business applying for it. I'm about to go through this again and I'm dreading it.

There's no perfect solution. You either post a job with low qualifications and get 11ty billion responses, which will cause you to miss the diamond in the rough, or you elevate the qualifications to prevent the bottom of the barrel applicants from wasting your time. The latter method has other implications, but there's no way to do it perfectly. Trying to score a good employee (the latter option) is the only sensible option for a business.

You're looking for a diamond in the rough but don't want the hassle of actually searching through said rough. And you then act surprised when the people you consider "the rough" aren't considerate enough of your time to self-screen themselves out? Wow, what fucking delusional and lazy managers we have nowadays.

 

[MrDudeMan]

You're looking for a diamond in the rough but don't want the hassle of actually searching through said rough. And you then act surprised when the people you consider "the rough" aren't considerate enough of your time to self-screen themselves out? Wow, what fucking delusional and lazy managers we have nowadays.

It's not delusional to want to do the least amount of work to find the best candidate. I think we can all agree that's the best method. You're a moron if you really can't come up with anything better than "fucking delusional and lazy" to describe that methodology. That's also not even approximately close to accurately describing what I said.

If I lower the requirements for my jobs, which I have done in the past, I get 500+ applicants. It's highly likely that a great candidate is in there somewhere and I may overlook them because it's tiring to go through that many resumes on top of actually doing my job and managing people.

If I raise the requirements, way less people apply and I'm more likely to find the person I want. In my experience, the only people who are weeded out by higher requirements weren't realistic candidates in the first place. If it takes a while to find someone, it's annoying and I will definitely complain about it, but I still understand why the pool of candidates is small.

All I'm really seeing in this thread is a bunch of cry babies who don't want to work hard for a good job. If the entry level requirements for the job you want don't match your resume, then go fix it on your own time. It's not my responsibility to hire shitty, lazy, or entitled assholes who want the requirements to be lowered. Sorry, but there's simply no motivation for me to do that because plenty of other people exist who will do the job and have the right experience. Sometimes it just takes a little bit of patience to find the right person, but that person is worth the wait considering how time consuming the hiring process can be.

I went out of my way in college to differentiate myself from other people. I also only applied to relevant jobs and tailored my resume to show I had the right knowledge and experience. Because of that, I got the job I wanted before I even graduated. This is very complicated stuff, I know.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

I have made my career on who-you-know, but honestly this system is ruining the meritocracy that is the American job market.

The American job market was never a meritocracy.

 

[Ns1]

I went out of my way in college to differentiate myself from other people. I also only applied to relevant jobs and tailored my resume to show I had the right knowledge and experience. Because of that, I got the job I wanted before I even graduated. This is very complicated stuff, I know.

But it's just so much easier to send the same resume and no cover letter to 100 employers and hope for the best.

 

[MrDudeMan]

But it's just so much easier to send the same resume and no cover letter to 100 employers and hope for the best.

I understand why people do it and I still see plenty of that even when I elevate the requirements of the position. As the employer, I do what I need to do to try to remove those people from my applicant pool so I can focus on the people who are worth hiring.

 

[jlee]

All I'm really seeing in this thread is a bunch of cry babies who don't want to work hard for a good job. If the entry level requirements for the job you want don't match your resume, then go fix it on your own time. It's not my responsibility to hire shitty, lazy, or entitled assholes who want the requirements to be lowered. Sorry, but there's simply no motivation for me to do that because plenty of other people exist who will do the job and have the right experience.

Good luck finding an experienced tech with a VCP cert for $47k, as mentioned earlier in this thread.

 

[glenn1]

It's not delusional to want to do the least amount of work to find the best candidate. I think we can all agree that's the best method. You're a moron if you really can't come up with anything better than "fucking delusional and lazy" to describe that methodology. That's also not even approximately close to accurately describing what I said.

If I lower the requirements for my jobs, which I have done in the past, I get 500+ applicants. It's highly likely that a great candidate is in there somewhere and I may overlook them because it's tiring to go through that many resumes on top of actually doing my job and managing people.

If I raise the requirements, way less people apply and I'm more likely to find the person I want. In my experience, the only people who are weeded out by higher requirements weren't realistic candidates in the first place. If it takes a while to find someone, it's annoying and I will definitely complain about it, but I still understand why the pool of candidates is small.

All I'm really seeing in this thread is a bunch of cry babies who don't want to work hard for a good job. If the entry level requirements for the job you want don't match your resume, then go fix it on your own time. It's not my responsibility to hire shitty, lazy, or entitled assholes who want the requirements to be lowered. Sorry, but there's simply no motivation for me to do that because plenty of other people exist who will do the job and have the right experience. Sometimes it just takes a little bit of patience to find the right person, but that person is worth the wait considering how time consuming the hiring process can be.

I went out of my way in college to differentiate myself from other people. I also only applied to relevant jobs and tailored my resume to show I had the right knowledge and experience. Because of that, I got the job I wanted before I even graduated. This is very complicated stuff, I know.

I've been on both the hiring and applying side of the table, so you calling me a "moron" doesn't phase me. If anything it goes to show how clueless you are when in one breath you talk about wanting "least amount of work" for yourself and then complain about those
who "don't want to work hard for a good job." So basically you want to hire someone with a better work ethic than you.

I'm also amused by how you think you differentiated" yourself in college.

 

[stormkroe]

I just ran this puppy

Got 2 calls, one was another owner congratulating my honesty. I'm offering $8 more per hour ($39) than any company in my area, plus ins, plus company truck. People are laaaaaaaaazy.