

Ask HN: How to Parse “Requirements” in a Job Listing? - sarciszewski

Because I&#x27;m curious:<p>When you see a list of &quot;requirements&quot; in a job ad, and fail to adequately meet even just one of the list items, do you apply anyway? If not, at what point do you, personally, draw the line?
======
kylecordes
From the point of view of someone who writes job requirements then receives
resumes: no matter what you write in job requirements, you will receive a
stack of resumes which don't even remotely match the job requirements. So many
resumes that it is impossible to sift through them in any depth. In an attempt
to get a stack of hundred (or more) resumes down to a pile you can read in any
depth, you are forced to look at each one very briefly and put it in the "no"
pile for missing, or even not clearly fulfilling, any requirements listed.

It ends up as a sort of "tragedy of the commons" situation. There might be a
person in that stack, who does not literally meet the listed requirements, but
who nonetheless would be a great hire. Their opportunity to be "discovered" is
taken away by the large number of respondents polluting the resume stack for a
job they clearly are not qualified for.

~~~
sarciszewski
I see. It has been my tendency to go "Hmm, I match 8/9 of the ones listed, but
not #7 on their list. Oh well, moving on." I had been wondering if this was
foolish of me.

~~~
byoung2
_I had been wondering if this was foolish of me._

Keep in mind that all of the other applicants might have matched at most 7/9
requirements, and you could have been the top candidate.

~~~
sarciszewski
There's the rub: What if the requirements are _actually_ requirements? What if
they're not, and only the first 1 or 2 list items are essential? I tend to
play it safe so I don't waste companies' time.

~~~
dragonwriter
> There's the rub: What if the requirements are actually requirements?

Then they won't call you back if you don't meet them.

> I tend to play it safe so I don't waste companies' time.

If the requirements are actually hard requirements and you don't meet them,
the company isn't even a potential employer. If they aren't hard requirements,
you aren't wasting their time. It seems to me the only real consideration
should be whether you are wasting _your_ time.

~~~
sarciszewski
> It seems to me the only real consideration should be whether you are wasting
> _your_ time.

If my time were valuable, I'd probably be getting paid better for it. :P

------
dragonwriter
> When you see a list of "requirements" in a job ad, and fail to adequately
> meet even just one of the list items, do you apply anyway? If not, at what
> point do you, personally, draw the line?

Unless there's a context in which I know the requirements are non-negotiable
(class admission requirements for a civil service position, for instnace), I
look at the duties first, and if I feel I can do the duties, I look at the
"requirements" as what the hiring entity _assumes_ are necessary to do the
job, but also assume that the hiring entity can be convinced that those are
not really minimums on a case-by-case basis -- but that they are things that
the application should _address_ in some way if they are missing.

IME, it's true often enough that its worth taking that approach.

~~~
sarciszewski
> ... I look at the duties first, and if I feel I can do the duties, I look at
> the "requirements" ... > ... they are things that the application should
> _address_ in some way if they are missing.

That's actually a pretty reasonable way to handle the uncertainty. :)

------
poseid
I found that besides skills, people focus on "years of experience" . I would
love to see more of "flow" parameters in job requirements, and I blogged about
this idea a while back: [http://thinkingonthinking.com/skill-
bars/](http://thinkingonthinking.com/skill-bars/)

~~~
sarciszewski
Yes, I've seen this a lot. The years of experience thing can be taken to
ridiculous extremes, as well: I was turned down in the middle of an interview
for a PHP position (I have 12 years of experience) recently because, and I'm
not making this up, the interviewer claimed, "Well, I have guys with 18 years
of experience, I'll call you back if we have an opening for a junior PHP
devleoper role. _click_ "

I like the flow concept. :)

~~~
byoung2
Wow...18 years of experience in PHP! I would imagine the last 10 years would
be the most relevant (post PHP5 and OOP) for most modern applications.

~~~
sarciszewski
Yes indeed, and the language itself is only 19 years old. I personally view
this claim as suspicious, but I didn't argue the point. Anyone who decides
that 12 years isn't enough to qualify for a senior position without further
examination is probably not the sort of person I'd enjoy working for. :)

