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.
Annerk: No need to get offended. All I'm saying is that if something is truly required, say it. Also, in the cases in question, they rejected people for INTERVIEWS because they didn't have the "preferred" skills, which is more than just rejecting people for the job intself. So, it isn't about other candidates - it's about rejecting people because (though they meet the requirements), they don't have the preferred skills... which means the preferred skills are requirements.
I would reject someone who had the required qualifications for an interview if I had four others who had the required qualifications and a good percentage or all of the preferred ones as well. I don't interview everyone that applies. I weed through and phone interview the top 4-5 candidates and then bring the top 2-3 of those in for an in-person interview. To bother interviewing someone (even when they meet the minimum requirements) when there are obviously more qualified candidates is a waste of everyone's time.
The preferred skills are not the requirements, because if I got no one with the group of preferred skills on top of the required skills I wouldn't toss out the whole stack of resumes, I'd find the best qualified with the required skills.
By the way, my company doesn't have an online application system. The resumes for the jobs I post come to me. I skim every single one of them that applies the way I request (must provide a cover letter for example). The best way to catch my eye is to have an amazing cover letter.
Annerk: No need to get offended. All I'm saying is that if something is truly required, say it. Also, in the cases in question, they rejected people for INTERVIEWS because they didn't have the "preferred" skills, which is more than just rejecting people for the job intself. So, it isn't about other candidates - it's about rejecting people because (though they meet the requirements), they don't have the preferred skills... which means the preferred skills are requirements.
It may also mean those w/o the preferred skills failed to offset that negative disadvantage vs other candidates, with things they were the strongest candidate on.
The difference in a requirement is offsetting competitive advantages would not be considered at all, if the applicant did not meet every criteria.
Long story short, I'm not disagreeing with you - I understand that hiring is not an exact science. All I'm saying is be honest. If there's no way in heck you're going to hire somebody who has only 3 out of the 7 "preferred skills," just put a label at the top of the list saying that. It'll save me time from applying if I don't meet the criteria and you time from going through resumes from angry people who think they were qualified.
I would hire the person with 3 of the 7 preferred skills, but not if I had four candidates that had 6 or all of the preferred skills on top of the required qualifications. It comes down to who is the best candidate, and that is usually the person with the most to bring to the table--unless they've got some off personality trait.
hnsq: I never disagreed with the use of connections, but this post started about the problems with online applications, so, yeah... I agree with the rest of what you're saying... just more honesty online would be nice.
annerk: While I've never applied to your company, I still appreciate the fact that you read all the resumes. That is very rare these days, but it can really help folks out of work since it gives them a chance to shine vs. being "cataloged" by the automated systems. The human touch is so often missing in HR, and I'm glad some folks are still doing it.
I know many people who aren't Hispanic who speak fluent Spanish. Your logic is seriously flawed.
That my logic is seriously flawed does not surprise me as logic has never been one of my strong points. Kindness generally is. Therefore I would never point out when a total stranger is not being logical. Especially if it is not at all important to my life.
That my logic is seriously flawed does not surprise me as logic has never been one of my strong points. Kindness generally is. Therefore I would never point out when a total stranger is not being logical. Especially if it is not at all important to my life.
Kindness and a dollar will get a cup of coffee at 7-11. Now what was your point?
Employers, when searching for an employee to fill a position, STOP saying a particular skill set is a "HUGE plus" or "Preferred." Stating something's a plus or preferred implies that it's not necessary and you can teach it to them, but very nice to have.
Yet, you have the nerve to get upset when you can't find someone with that particular skill set amongst applicants, or folks apply without that particular skill set because YOU don't know how to fill positions.
If, without question or exception, you want someone with a particular skill set, state clearly in the ad that it's REQUIRED, not a "HUGE plus" or "Preferred.". You'll save yourself time/money and you'll save the applicant time/money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambler123
Agreed. Some companies are really bad with this. They'll post some narrow job listing and give the requirements as something like:
Required:
A mechanical engineering degree and a pulse.
Preferred:
3 to 5 years experience designing interior trim for blue sedans
Experience programming Siemens Model XYZ robots
TQM, 6-Sigma, and Kaizen methods
Experience with (insert company quality management system here)
CAD (Catia Version 5 preferred)
FEA analysis
Experience in the automotive industry.
I mean, we get it, and you're not fooling anyone by sticking the actual job requirements under "Preferred" vs. "Required." I don't know if they get something out of having lots of people apply based on the low Requirements while having no shot at the job, or if it is a way to justify hiring the boss's son because he meets the "Requirements" even though everything they really want is only "Preferred."
You are discussing the difference between minimum qualifications (required by law from an in depth job analysis) and what they would prefer to have.
By law they can not hire anyone that does not meet minimum qualifications (opens them up to possible litigation).
However, beyond required they can be choosy about what they would prefer, especially if it is job related.
So, the reason job postings are listed like that is to protect them legally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 313Weather
That doesn't make any sense.
EEO is protection from discrimination by Age, Race, Sex, Religion, etc.
What does stating "RealComp experience is required" versus "RealComp experience is preferred" have to do with EEO protection?
what happens if a minority or older person had 2 of the 5 required quals, and a non-minority had 4 of the 5 required quals. Neither had all of them, so the minority/older person has a legit EEO suit on his/her hands. Neither of them were actually qualified (according to what was required) but the non-minority got hired. However, if the non-minority had the 1 required and the minority did not there is no suit.
You are discussing the difference between minimum qualifications (required by law from an in depth job analysis) and what they would prefer to have.
By law they can not hire anyone that does not meet minimum qualifications (opens them up to possible litigation).
However, beyond required they can be choosy about what they would prefer, especially if it is job related.
So, the reason job postings are listed like that is to protect them legally.
I understand that - all I'm saying is if you're not going to hire somebody who is missing more than 3 out of 7 Preferred skills or something, say so. I understand it's not an exact science, but I've run into cases where companies will flat-out refuse to interview people who don't have most or all of the "preferred" skills... well, then they are not really "preferred," are they?
All I'm asking for is a bit more granularity and honesty. If there's something you STRONGLY prefer, say so. If a candidate really should have "most of the following skills," say so.
I understand HR is not an easy job, but inaccurate job postings just waste everyone's time - the applicant when applying, and the HR person when sorting through resumes. For example, earlier on this thread, we had somebody blasting people as "idiots" for applying when they only had 2 out of 7 "preferred skills." Well, if they are never going to hire somebody with those few preferred skills, why not say that in the post instead of blasting them on an internet forums?
I understand that - all I'm saying is if you're not going to hire somebody who is missing more than 3 out of 7 Preferred skills or something, say so. I understand it's not an exact science, but I've run into cases where companies will flat-out refuse to interview people who don't have most or all of the "preferred" skills... well, then they are not really "preferred," are they?
All I'm asking for is a bit more granularity and honesty. If there's something you STRONGLY prefer, say so. If a candidate really should have "most of the following skills," say so.
I understand HR is not an easy job, but inaccurate job postings just waste everyone's time - the applicant when applying, and the HR person when sorting through resumes. For example, earlier on this thread, we had somebody blasting people as "idiots" for applying when they only had 2 out of 7 "preferred skills." Well, if they are never going to hire somebody with those few preferred skills, why not say that in the post instead of blasting them on an internet forums?
I completely understand your side. Although I work in the area that develops the interview content, assessments, etc. I just went through it all to get my new job . I guess the way I saw it was you have to understand what your chances are depending on how many of the preferred quals you have.
I applied to companies where I had 2-3 of 5 and was a little short on preferred experience, and I applied to companies where I was right on with experience and had all of the preferred quals. I fully expected to get more call backs from companies I was a closer match with and almost every time that was the case. It is frustrating, but they are protecting themselves from potential litigation, which can cost millions of dollars. They are willing to have many false negatives in order to protect from litigation and avoid a few false positives. In an economy like this they can afford to do that. Unfortunately it's just the way it is right now.
I discussed this earlier on this forum, but there was one position that wanted a person with a masters and 1 year of experience (preferred). I have 3-4 years of experience and am a dissertation defense (about 2 months) from finishing my PhD. The hiring manager called me and after she found out I didn't have an MS (regardless of the fact that I had much more schooling and had taken comprehensive exams which MS graduates from our school don't have to do) she said she couldn't continue with the process because I didn't meet the minimum quals. It was frustrating, but it was written as a min. qual and, while they should have added in or graduate student in advanced standing (ABD), they did not and I was effectively screened out.
Employers, when searching for an employee to fill a position, STOP saying a particular skill set is a "HUGE plus" or "Preferred." Stating something's a plus or preferred implies that it's not necessary and you can teach it to them, but very nice to have.
Yet, you have the nerve to get upset when you can't find someone with that particular skill set amongst applicants, or folks apply without that particular skill set because YOU don't know how to fill positions.
If, without question or exception, you want someone with a particular skill set, state clearly in the ad that it's REQUIRED, not a "HUGE plus" or "Preferred.". You'll save yourself time/money and you'll save the applicant time/money.
I wish they would do this. It seems almost tacky when they say that some skill is a "plus". Either they want it or they don't.
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.
. I guess the way I saw it was you have to understand what your chances are depending on how many of the preferred quals you have. 
