Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am not quite sure why folks are so quick to blame HR. I guess HR is the convenient scapegoat.
HR rarely makes a hiring decision. Typically they post the jobs, they set up the interviews, they may do a prescreen, etc. They are also there usually to ensure that the hiring manager is actually interviewing people and not just hiring his best friend.
I have not worked at any large company or medium sized (and I have worked for both F500 public companies and very large private corporations) where HR made any real hiring decision for any hiring manager. In fact, the folks in HR who were involved in any of the staffing were just one minor department within HR-- they were not involved in policies, employee/employer relations, etc.
I should add that typically when HR is a hard ass about certain qualifications to move forward past screening it is normally because the hiring manager deemed it so. So if the hiring manager said that they only want people who have had ZYX experience then a prescreen is going to ensure that the candidate matches those credentials.
As for HR being a "waste of a job" rather unfortunate that is the belief. HR is generally the folks making sure that business units try to be as fair as possible, promote and maintain benefits for workers, ensure that compensation is where the company wishes to be in market, and often times it is HR who is trying to have organizations really think about the human resource aspects versus just firing or laying off people willy nilly. HR has A LOT of facets and a lot of responsibilities that are far outside of screening candidates for jobs.
Like any group of employees-- there are all kinds in HR. But most of them that I have had to work with in the past (I was usually a vendor/partner with HR departments) I find most of the time they as a collective group are trying to balance the desires of the corporation with the benefit of the employees. You can be damned sure it is not your department heads or senior leadership who want to pay out the costs for health care plans-- usually it is HR who is pushing the better benefits for the employee populace.
But the problem is as Rambler 123 said is that often they're the "gatekeepers". You have people reviewing resumes who don't know what they're looking at or don't know what skill sets are interchangeable.
I worked at a well known university and after 5 yrs of employment applied for another position with another department. I got a turn down letter thanking me for my interest but that I was not qualified and no acknowledgment that I was a current employee.
I literally worked two buildings away for 5 yrs from the employment office and the way the letter was written implied that I didn't even work there.
I took the letter of to the director of the employment office who was mortified, I was livid, I was qualified. I found out later that the trick was to apply directly to the dept and NOT got through HR if you wanted to transfer.
After that I worked at Fortune 500 company and we had an opening in our dept. One day one of the women from HR came to my office(we were kind of chummy), she asked me on the sly to look at resumes(I wasn't the hiring manager my boss was), she confessed she had no idea what to look for.
That's scary and very common.
So while you're correct in that HR rarely makes the hiring decision, the problem is dealing with people who are put in charge of who gets called in for an interview. Manys time they're clueless as to what they're looking at and don't know how to interpet a resume.
Or they don't know what certain technical terms or what skills are interchangeable.
The job qualifications for this job were masters degree and preferably 1 year of experience
I am in a PhD program that does not require you to get your masters along the way, in fact most professors see it as too much red tape and prefer you just concentrate on classes and research. I am getting ready to finish my PhD (defend dissertation in September).
So I had a phone call with the manager today and the first thing she asked was..do you have a masters and I said no, but I will have my PhD in 3 months. She then said...well this is odd, I've never seen this before in my 20 years. We can't interview you because you don't meet the qualifications. So..I guess they don't interview anyone until after they have officially graduated.....
I have passed my comprehensive exams, and have 80 hours of graduate level credit, lol. Comprehensive exams makes a master's program look like a joke, but because I don't have an actual degree yet I am not qualified, lol.
I also have 4 years of job experience doing exactly what they are hiring for. So instead they will get someone with probably no experience and 50 fewer graduate level credits than me, lol.
Anyone had similar experiences?
So I guess if the minimum quals are a BA and it is March, you can't apply.....until you actually get the diploma.
Edit: PS: I work in a field where a PhD is not looked upon as an over-qualification. Almost everyone would prefer a PhD over an MA because the degree is applied at both levels, it just includes more theory and expertise at the PhD level.
If they require a Masters and you don't have one....what is the issue?
Koale
But the problem is as Rambler 123 said is that often they're the "gatekeepers". You have people reviewing resumes who don't know what they're looking at or don't know what skill sets are interchangeable.
I worked at a well known university and after 5 yrs of employment applied for another position with another department. I got a turn down letter thanking me for my interest but that I was not qualified and no acknowledgment that I was a current employee.
I literally worked two buildings away for 5 yrs from the employment office and the way the letter was written implied that I didn't even work there.
I took the letter of to the director of the employment office who was mortified, I was livid, I was qualified. I found out later that the trick was to apply directly to the dept and NOT got through HR if you wanted to transfer.
After that I worked at Fortune 500 company and we had an opening in our dept. One day one of the women from HR came to my office(we were kind of chummy), she asked me on the sly to look at resumes(I wasn't the hiring manager my boss was), she confessed she had no idea what to look for.
That's scary and very common.
So while you're correct in that HR rarely makes the hiring decision, the problem is dealing with people who are put in charge of who gets called in for an interview. Manys time they're clueless as to what they're looking at and don't know how to interpet a resume.
Or they don't know what certain technical terms or what skills are interchangeable.
Are they perfect - no. But is anyone perfect? For every story about a HR screw up, I'm sure there's one about an accounting, IT, operations, sales, marketing, and so on, screw up.
Yes, among other areas of responsibility, HR also facilitates the hiring process for the organization. This means they support the hiring managers in finding the best qualified candidates. They rarely make the hiring decision - or I guess I should say recommendation. They do have some input, but that's usually from a HR side dealing with compensation/benefit negotiation.
Since HR isn't IT/Marketing/Accounting etc, they have to rely on the hiring managers to provide the necessary information to filter the potentially high number of responses. I think to expect a HR person (and recruiters are not typically the sr. folks) to have a good understanding all the different ares of an organization is a bit much. e.g. how many of use know someone that has experience in GAAP, MPLS/BGP, SDLC, Maxam Gilbert, etc.?
Most of the time, the breakdown lies with the hiring manager. Although I would suspect the issue is also from a biased viewpoint as you're not gonna hear too many candidates talk about how HR did a great job screening them out of a job they didn't qualify for.
It's an extra layer to get through... but as a hiring manager, if that layer wasn't there, I would rely solely on referrals as there would be very few hiring managers that would have the resource to sift through tens to hundreds of resumes.... I know I sure as hell wouldn't.
As for the OPs issue - you might be a PhD candidate, but at this point - you aren't there yet. And since they require at least a Masters, which you don't have.... as of this minute, you don't qualify based on the requirements.
That...is retarded. That's someone who can't think. Someone who is programmed and what you presented them with just does not compute and all they can do is recite policy.
That...is retarded. That's someone who can't think. Someone who is programmed and what you presented them with just does not compute and all they can do is recite policy.
I agree with this. It's beyond stupid and it sounds like the head of the department has little say in what qualifications are required. I know that, in some companies, the HR department is responsible for putting together job descriptions and required qualifications even if they know little about the position. I once emailed an HR person within the federal government about accreditation requirements that were impossible to meet for the degree they were asking for and they just ignored me. It could be due to their clients and sue-happy lawyers or it could just be their stupidity which is quite common. I like the way the federal government comes up with its education requirements outside of the job posting I complained about. A couple of years in a PhD program is the equivalent of having a master's degree for most positions.
I agree with this. It's beyond stupid and it sounds like the head of the department has little say in what qualifications are required. I know that, in some companies, the HR department is responsible for putting together job descriptions and required qualifications even if they know little about the position. I once emailed an HR person within the federal government about accreditation requirements that were impossible to meet for the degree they were asking for and they just ignored me. It could be due to their clients and sue-happy lawyers or it could just be their stupidity which is quite common. I like the way the federal government comes up with its education requirements outside of the job posting I complained about. A couple of years in a PhD program is the equivalent of having a master's degree for most positions.
Well perhaps it is one way for federal and state governments, but I can tell you as someone who has been a hiring manager or supported one-- HR never wrote the job descriptions. It was the hiring manager. They could use a "template" based on common job titles in the company, but 9 times out of 10 it was the hiring manager deciding on the requisite skills, experience, etc. HR had to make sure that no one was saying ONLY WHITE PEOPLE APPLY or ONLY SINGLE PEOPLE, but HR did NOT determine what was required.
But the problem is as Rambler 123 said is that often they're the "gatekeepers". You have people reviewing resumes who don't know what they're looking at or don't know what skill sets are interchangeable.
I worked at a well known university and after 5 yrs of employment applied for another position with another department. I got a turn down letter thanking me for my interest but that I was not qualified and no acknowledgment that I was a current employee.
I literally worked two buildings away for 5 yrs from the employment office and the way the letter was written implied that I didn't even work there.
I took the letter of to the director of the employment office who was mortified, I was livid, I was qualified. I found out later that the trick was to apply directly to the dept and NOT got through HR if you wanted to transfer.
After that I worked at Fortune 500 company and we had an opening in our dept. One day one of the women from HR came to my office(we were kind of chummy), she asked me on the sly to look at resumes(I wasn't the hiring manager my boss was), she confessed she had no idea what to look for.
That's scary and very common.
So while you're correct in that HR rarely makes the hiring decision, the problem is dealing with people who are put in charge of who gets called in for an interview. Manys time they're clueless as to what they're looking at and don't know how to interpet a resume.
Or they don't know what certain technical terms or what skills are interchangeable.
The trick is ALWAYS to go to someone you know versus HR.
Why? Because what commonly happens is that hiring managers do not realize that if they request XYZ and you have XYA you will NOT be screened to get to the next level. Period. End of story.
And let's be clear-- HR folks are not peopling around and looking at resumes or apps. They have talent management programs that do that for you. And just like a search engine-- if you don't have the requisite experience you will NOT get in the review pile. Period.
In my last company (approximately 40k employees), I would have my manager reach out to groups I was interested in interviewing with-- or I would find out on my own who the hiring manager was. HR was a formality. In many cases, I was not 100% qualified for the positions (lets be clear, I don't apply for positions I am 100% qualified for-- my intent is to grow in my career not repeat the same job over and over) but because I could articulate what I brought to the table and how it could work most hiring managers were interested in me anyhow. A few times I completely lost out to someone who did have XYZ versus my XYA, but so be it.
HR is a gatekeeper-- and they are a required one. A hiring manager does not have the time nor the inclination to go through mounds of resumes for an opening. They have their real jobs to do. Heck, even staffing departments don't have the time to go through the mounds of applications. For most professional jobs, you are going to have a huge chunk of apps from people who are by no means even 50% qualified. Kind of like that speech that went around-- no one is special, you may be qualified for a job but didnt get interviewed or selected to screen for a variety of reasons-- they hit an adequate amount of qualified candidates who applied earlier, for whatever reason they prefer to go external, for whatever reason they prefer to go internal, for whatever reason they preferred the types of previous experience other applicants had even though at base level you were both qualified, or they had candidates who brought experience that they just preferred, or your resume didn't have enough of their key words or finally your's just was caught in a glitch. Who knows. It happens. Doesn't make HR the evil over lord of corporations. Like I said earlier, HR is usually annoyingly pro-employee for various reasons (morale improves company performance, their job is to safeguard against lawsuits, etc). At the end of the day- it is not HR who is going to be crying out to cut a group or laying off an entire product line.
Companies I have worked for (all sizes and types) usually have a requirement for internal candidates to always be screened and get feedback. I have found these types of interviews always beneficial and I have learned in the past that at times when even HR thought I would be a good add-- the hiring manager came back and said.. I still want XYZ experience versus her XYA. Their decision not HR's nor mine.
I am not sure what happened in your circumstance. Where I have worked there was a special process for internal employees to use to put in their name for a job so it was pretty clear even on the HR or HRIS system side who was who (aka internal versus external).
If they require a Masters and you don't have one....what is the issue?
Koale
Clarification it was the head of the department I was applying for, not HR. She did say she had to contact HR and was pretty sure I couldn't apply because I didn't have a masters.
Sure, I don't have a masters, but as many have pointed out, most organizations in my field consider being ABD as having your masters, hell most will hire you into PhD positions while being ABD. I have interviews with 2 other companies that require a PhD, why are they still pursuing me if I am not qualified?
I have completed all coursework and the qualifying/comprehensive exams necessary for a PhD. So....how do I not have the equivalent of a Masters? The only thing I have not completed is my dissertation, which I am almost finished with as well.
To top it off I am finishing my dissertation in September, so it's not as if I am a year or so away. Most professional positions take a couple months to fill anyway. I just find it odd that she couldn't interview me for the position.
If she found someone better that could start next week it would make sense. But, if they aren't planning to fill the position until Mid August (which has been the case with most other orgs. I have heard from) and I will be done by early September....how am I not at least qualified for an interview?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
what's the issue???
