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 just received a response from an application I sent and they stated that HR has reviewed the applications and regret having to inform me that I do not qualify for that position. I have experience BEYOND EVERY QUALIFICATION that they stated for the job description. Not to mention that there are two spelling errors in the job description.
In a perfect world, I would respond with a phone call to HR telling them that they must be mistaken and that I, in fact, have all of the qualifications. Also, one of the things listed was something about paying attention to details. I should notify them that they obviously don't pay attention to details, given the two spelling errors, so I can see where I wouldn't be a good fit.
But, I will remain professional and just bite my tongue. Move on and keep hacking away in this war zone of a job market.
I get this all the time. It's just normal. Jobs I qualify for in every aspect on paper, yet still receive emails stating something along the lines of, "Sorry, although your background is impressive, we have decided to pursue other candidates who more closely meet our needs". A lot of times I think companies just do internal recruiting and already know who they want to hire, but have to make job postings because they need a certain amount of candidates to apply.
I get this all the time. It's just normal. Jobs I qualify for in every aspect on paper, yet still receive emails stating something along the lines of, "Sorry, although your background is impressive, we have decided to pursue other candidates who more closely meet our needs". A lot of times I think companies just do internal recruiting and already know who they want to hire, but have to make job postings because they need a certain amount of candidates to apply.
I'm guessing this was the case since it was a pretty quick time frame from application to rejection e-mail. I just can't get over the two spelling errors. Ugh !!!
I just received a response from an application I sent and they stated that HR has reviewed the applications and regret having to inform me that I do not qualify for that position. I have experience BEYOND EVERY QUALIFICATION that they stated for the job description. Not to mention that there are two spelling errors in the job description.
In a perfect world, I would respond with a phone call to HR telling them that they must be mistaken and that I, in fact, have all of the qualifications. Also, one of the things listed was something about paying attention to details. I should notify them that they obviously don't pay attention to details, given the two spelling errors, so I can see where I wouldn't be a good fit.
But, I will remain professional and just bite my tongue. Move on and keep hacking away in this war zone of a job market.
Just wanted to post my rant.
In my experience, HR people can be a mixed bag. Sometimes, they seem to know exactly what they're doing. And sometimes, they seem to be a bunch of incompetent clowns. There's not much you can do about it.
how is the job a good fit if your experience is so above and beyond what they are requesting? that would suggest the exact opposite to me. i'd reject your application, too. they don't want someone who is going to leave for a better job in a month.
I find that this has the potential to be even more true when screening for IT jobs, because the skill sets just sound like random words to them. I can't count the number of times I've seen job ads requesting that you have experience with "Sequel" databases.
(SQL databases are pronounced "sequel", but never EVER written that way)
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,563 posts, read 81,147,605 times
Reputation: 57767
A couple of spelling errors, while not excusable, do not make the HR people unable to assess qualifications. Whether you actually met them or not I can't say without seeing them and your resume but most likely, they were just using a standard response and the fact is that you were qualified, but just not as qualified as other applicants who they chose to interview over you.
On that SQL thing, I suppose the hiring manager may have given that to the HR person over the phone and then didn't proof it before it went out. Normally we write our own requirements as the hiring manager, then HR may edit it up a bit and add a couple of standard questions that they like used for all applicants but we get it back to review before it's posted.
A couple of spelling errors, while not excusable, do not make the HR people unable to assess qualifications. Whether you actually met them or not I can't say without seeing them and your resume but most likely, they were just using a standard response and the fact is that you were qualified, but just not as qualified as other applicants who they chose to interview over you.
On that SQL thing, I suppose the hiring manager may have given that to the HR person over the phone and then didn't proof it before it went out. Normally we write our own requirements as the hiring manager, then HR may edit it up a bit and add a couple of standard questions that they like used for all applicants but we get it back to review before it's posted.
^^ This. Keep in mind that in the end, hiring is a subjective task. And the only person's "perception" of who's best qualified that really matters is the one doing the hiring.
On that SQL thing, I suppose the hiring manager may have given that to the HR person over the phone and then didn't proof it before it went out. Normally we write our own requirements as the hiring manager, then HR may edit it up a bit and add a couple of standard questions that they like used for all applicants but we get it back to review before it's posted.
But that's exactly what I'm talking about (and I'm sure the scenario you described is exactly what happened). An HR person who's screening will often look through resumes and try to match the keyword "sequel" to their job ad, accidentally overlooking all the people that have experience with SQL in the process because it appears to be a different skill to them.
Obviously, it's an easy mistake to make. But the esoteric nature of IT warrants some additional education for HR personnel who will be screening for these positions. By default, most of them aren't going to know or care what SQL is...but they should. It all kind of routes back to "HR people assessing qualifications". Unless they have a background working with IT folks, most of them will be unable to properly do so (assess qualifications)
Hiring managers don't know how to use the automated Applicant Tracking Software most legitimate companies use today. If they keep the HR Experts out of the process they will be sitting in front of 500 paper resumes, most from fools and the unemployed. Smart hiring managers let the HR Experts screen the resumes and give the best 20 or so to the supervisor. The final decision on who to hire is made by the manager. HR is a gate keeper.
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.
