Jobseeker. Discouraging myself.

[hazuki]

Hi all.

I've been out of school for 2 years, working at a small company for the past year and a half. I think that it's time I moved on, so I'm looking for a new job.

I find that I'm in an awkward position where I'm not fresh out of school, and I barely have two years work experience (probably 2.5 years if we count internships in college). There are a lot of jobs out there that "require" 3 or 4+ years experience in some field or another. Some of the jobs sound interesting, but I find myself put off by the years of experience requirements, as well as other requirements. For instance, a particular job has "FPGA Design" as a requirement, yet I've never touched an FPGA, but I find them really interesting.

Anybody out there applied for jobs that you thought you were under-qualified for and still got?

[T3sl4co1l]

I just always put "5+ years experience" on my resume because, well, I've been doing this literally forever.  Not in a professional context, but it's not an outright lie either.

Don't think of the resume quiiiiite so much as a description of yourself, so much as a description of what you're looking for.  Resumes that simply don't fit the mold are discarded outright; resumes with more matching keywords float to the top.  At big companies (or automatic notifications like on LinkedIn), this will all happen before human eyes even touch it, and even then, the eyes are from HR, who may have somewhere between little and no understanding of your field's actual skills and demands.  They're still just sorting.  If you're lucky, you'll be in the short stack of resumes that actually makes it to an engineering manager, and then you might get a call, and even an interview.

If you're looking at smaller places, obviously neither the quantity in competition, nor the automation, is present, in which case the usual rules apply: have something eye catching, clear, understandable and to the point.

Never forget, job search goes the opposite direction too.  You need money, but you also need a nice place to work.  I'd rather work in fast food than work somewhere I hate every single day -- at least then I'm getting paid the way I feel about it!

If you're interested in a firm, instead of the usual application / resume route, maybe you'd ask if you can get a tour -- state your interest in their operations, maybe they'll let you take a look.  Then you can see first hand what the facilities, activities, and people, are like.  Ask questions -- about things you see, things you know -- things you don't know -- this is a learning experience after all!  Try to avoid general questions like "how do you like it here" -- what else are they going to say?  Especially since your tour guide is probably a manager.  You'll also get a better idea of what they're looking for -- maybe five years experience isn't really necessary, they're willing to train (or let you train -- pay for outside classes, allow time on-the-job for screwing around with dev kits, etc.).

Tim

[EEVblog]

I find that I'm in an awkward position where I'm not fresh out of school, and I barely have two years work experience (probably 2.5 years if we count internships in college). There are a lot of jobs out there that "require" 3 or 4+ years experience in some field or another.

No, they don't.
That's just a number they pulled out their arse, it just means they don't want a graduate.

Anybody out there applied for jobs that you thought you were under-qualified for and still got?

Yep, very common to have that happen.
From an employers perspective, experience in the actual area of interest is very important of course (sometimes crucial), but more often than not, when you are asking for someone with only a few years of experience, it's not that important. You are hiring more based on the personality, attitude, team fit etc.

Just apply to everything you think sounds good.

[AndyC_772]

Don't forget you can broaden your skills outside of the office environment. If you're interested in FPGAs but have never used one, download and install a copy of Quartus from Altera's web site - it's free - and get a USB Blaster and a simple development board off Ebay. Then start with a simple 'hello world' program that wiggles a pin in VHDL or Verilog, and go from there.

[bwat]

I find that I'm in an awkward position where I'm not fresh out of school, and I barely have two years work experience (probably 2.5 years if we count internships in college). There are a lot of jobs out there that "require" 3 or 4+ years experience in some field or another. Some of the jobs sound interesting, but I find myself put off by the years of experience requirements, as well as other requirements.

If an interviewer brings up a requirement of X years of experience, you should reply along the lines of "how many of those years need to be experience, and how many can be mere repetitiion?" You can then present yourself as the "clean slate" candidate who wont be frustrated over the differences between a previous employers way of working and "this companies culture".

For instance, a particular job has "FPGA Design" as a requirement, yet I've never touched an FPGA, but I find them really interesting.

Obviously not that interesting! Get the hint? You come across as a bit dull to be honest and you wouldn't have passed me as an interviewer. When I interviewed candidates I would spend time asking them what they were interested in and get them to tell me about their personal projects. Anybody who said "I've never touched an FPGA, but I find them really interesting. " would set the alarm bells ringing. See the first quotation in my signature. Start taking responsibility for your own development and understand nobody cares as much about your development as you do. Start work on your own projects that you can point to as a clear demonstration of your abilities in design, planning, implementation, test, and documentation.

Anybody out there applied for jobs that you thought you were under-qualified for and still got?

No but don't be afraid of applying. I've never been upset for more than a day about not getting a certain job. In fact, in some cases it turned out that I had actually dodged a bullet.

[AndyC_772]

If an interviewer brings up a requirement of X years of experience, you should reply along the lines of "how many of those years need to be experience, and how many can be mere repetitiion?"

If I were interviewing a candidate who said something like this, it wouldn't help their application. Giving positive, if slightly unexpected, answers to questions about your background and experience can be a good thing. Directly challenging the interviewer with the implication that you think you know what they need better than they do, isn't.

Anybody who said "I've never touched an FPGA, but I find them really interesting. " would set the alarm bells ringing.

Me too, because, the painfully obvious question is "why?". Why have you never touched one, and how do you you know they're interesting?

It just doesn't stack up, and would tell me as an interviewer that you're really not that interested in them at all.

[bwat]

If I were interviewing a candidate who said something like this, it wouldn't help their application. Giving positive, if slightly unexpected, answers to questions about your background and experience can be a good thing. Directly challenging the interviewer with the implication that you think you know what they need better than they do, isn't.

I can appreciate what you're saying. However, I think it depends upon how you say it. If done with a wry smile and a tilt of the head, it starts a conversation about skills development in the workplace. Also, I was interviewing people who, if invited on board, could reasonable expect to be offered the chance to buy their way in as a partner in the firm. We weren't looking for dullards.

[KSP]

When I applied for my current job I was under qualified, but they liked me enough to employ me anyway AND pay for me to get the higher education 

Its all about how you sell yourself in an interview, and how well you write your CV/resume in order to get the interview. A lot of time companies would rather employ an under qualified person as it allows them to mould them to exactly what they want, rather than get someone who is set in their ways and have to adapt the work style to suit.

To be honest if you are not happy working where you currently are than what harm can there possibly be in applying for jobs? The worst they can say is no, in which case your life has not changed, you are no worse off than when you started, so then just apply somewhere else.

Hope this helps, I wish you luck in your job search

[_Sin]

What Dave said.

Any advert that lists a "X years experience of Y" is just saying "we need someone that can walk the walk and not just talk the talk". The number of years given is completely arbitrary.

That said, your CV might be filtered by an idiot robot, so ensure that you do list what your experience of said skill actually is, without drawing attention to the time-span (i.e. "As part of such and such a job I had to do this and that, etc."). I hate seeing CVs that just a bunch of random skills/technologies/acronyms and/or list time-spans, it tells me nothing other than that you've heard of a bunch of stuff and roughly when you first heard about it. Tell me what you have *done*.

That's harder when you don't actually have *any* experience of something but are interested in getting into it. I wouldn't bluff it on the CV too much (i.e. don't pretend you've done something if you've really only read a blog once) but it may be that your *other* experience is enough and they don't mind you picking up the rest on the job. Otherwise you're not the right person anyway. While you look for that job, try to pick up experience yourself, by doing said thing as a hobby - any practical experience is valid.

[Electric flower]

Im barely 17, one more year to finish high school and i managed to get a job (i was lucky but i hope i can give advice).

I wrote a email to a guy, in email i presented my self, said where i live, where i am going to school and mentioned all projects i did, even if they were lame i just tossed it all in email, than i posted some  pics of my soldering, pics of my lab, pics  of few disassembled phones, mentioned some repairs i did, languages i speak. Also i mentioned i'm not machine and that with course of time mistakes will happen and i will take responsibility.

Hope this was of some help, try to offer what others don't have and make a good impression.


If you wonder what happened after that. I quited job after i had breakfown of three weeks working 8 hours a day for a piss poor salary and having to deal with all sorts of aggressive and half retarded customers.

[Neilm]

Anybody out there applied for jobs that you thought you were under-qualified for and still got?

Don't be afraid of sending your CV. I sent mine to a prospective employer for a job that was more software than hardware. I turned up and had the interview - ended up with me confessing I had "miss-understood" the job spec into thinking they wanted someone who was a software person but could read a circuit diagram.

They ended up employing me due to my experience at something not even mentioned on the job spec.

[Alex]

Why do you want to move Hazuki?

Alex

[jaxbird]

If you apply for a job with a larger company, the HR department will likely filter you out based on the parameters they got as requirements for the position, before your application even reaches the manager seeking a new employee and making the final choice.

But in smaller companies you have a chance of landing a job even you don't fulfill all the requirements.

[Electronics-Repairman]

 I can tell you something from personal experience , when you apply and get an interview , make something that works and take it with you, most don't some get the job and some don't but if a future boss can actually see you can build something he/she will love it. That's how I got in, self taught no formal qualifications well not then . She saw what I built which was a function generator, job was mine, so don't get put off, and the best of luck.

[Kappes Buur]

About presenting projects you have developed:
Indeed, it's not a bad idea to show off what you have done. Equally important is the documentation that goes along with it. If you have documented the development process with text and images, both  of the project itself and possibly images of the oscilloscope screen, that will show the potential employer what you are capable of.

And also, make sure of correct english syntax. There is nothing as aggravating as mispellings.

[Corporate666]

I find that I'm in an awkward position where I'm not fresh out of school, and I barely have two years work experience (probably 2.5 years if we count internships in college). There are a lot of jobs out there that "require" 3 or 4+ years experience in some field or another.

No, they don't.
That's just a number they pulled out their arse, it just means they don't want a graduate.

Yep.

Furthermore, a lot of times the job description is written by someone in HR or the future boss of the new hire - and those people haven't a clue what skillset is actually needed, so they will come up with these ridiculous job descriptions stating they need someone, for example, who is an expert in C++, Java, SQL, Oracle, C#, .Net, networking/distributed apps and Perl.  Reality is, there likely is no such person - but the manager knows they use or have used some of those things in some aspect of their project so they think they need an expert in all of them.

Dumb.

[Kappes Buur]

Dumb.

Dumb? Au contraire.

The reason that most companies set such unrealistic requirements is simply for legal reasons, in case an applicant feels jilted about not getting the job and tries to establish a legal case for whatever reason, thinking that he/she should have been hired.

Then the company can claim insufficient credentials.

[EEVblog]

Me too, because, the painfully obvious question is "why?". Why have you never touched one, and how do you you know they're interesting?

You can find them interesting without having ever touched one.
That would not rule them out in my book, but I would ask the WHY? question. Then if they can't answer that it's bye-bye.

[Corporate666]

Dumb.

Dumb? Au contraire.

The reason that most companies set such unrealistic requirements is simply for legal reasons, in case an applicant feels jilted about not getting the job and tries to establish a legal case for whatever reason, thinking that he/she should have been hired.

Then the company can claim insufficient credentials.

Dunno where you heard that but it's not true.

As an employer, I don't need a reason not to hire someone, and companies don't spend time thinking up ways to justify not hiring someone.  Furthermore, creating fake requirements would be idiotically counterproductive as it would keep otherwise qualified candidates away.

The world is not nearly as complicated as some folks believe it to be.

[jmoreland79]

Dumb.

Dumb? Au contraire.

The reason that most companies set such unrealistic requirements is simply for legal reasons, in case an applicant feels jilted about not getting the job and tries to establish a legal case for whatever reason, thinking that he/she should have been hired.

Then the company can claim insufficient credentials.

Dunno where you heard that but it's not true.

As an employer, I don't need a reason not to hire someone, and companies don't spend time thinking up ways to justify not hiring someone.  Furthermore, creating fake requirements would be idiotically counterproductive as it would keep otherwise qualified candidates away.

The world is not nearly as complicated as some folks believe it to be.

Mind you that poster is Canadian so things may work differently up there.

The international nature of this forum makes this particular post interesting.  People have posted their opinions and experiences, but I imagine things work differently each time you cross a border...

[Corporate666]

Dumb.

Dumb? Au contraire.

The reason that most companies set such unrealistic requirements is simply for legal reasons, in case an applicant feels jilted about not getting the job and tries to establish a legal case for whatever reason, thinking that he/she should have been hired.

Then the company can claim insufficient credentials.

Dunno where you heard that but it's not true.

As an employer, I don't need a reason not to hire someone, and companies don't spend time thinking up ways to justify not hiring someone.  Furthermore, creating fake requirements would be idiotically counterproductive as it would keep otherwise qualified candidates away.

The world is not nearly as complicated as some folks believe it to be.

Mind you that poster is Canadian so things may work differently up there.

The international nature of this forum makes this particular post interesting.  People have posted their opinions and experiences, but I imagine things work differently each time you cross a border...

I am sure there are differences between each country in terms of employment law, but I'm equally sure that no country mandates that you hire the first person you interview who meets the technical requirements listed for the job.  And I'm also equally sure that a company who wanted an "easy out" for not hiring someone would not choose the one thing which is published for the world to see and eternally on record as the thing they would then use to illegally refuse to hire a candidate.  Not only that, but there are few more objectively measurable things than what skills a job entails.  Not to mention you would usually have a person who previously held that title and would, in many cases, be a disgruntled ex-worker all-too-willing to help nail their ex-employer.

Putting fake job requirements would have to be a close second to "no blacks need apply" in the "dumb shit to do in a job listing" category 

[T3sl4co1l]

Supposedly, putting in exceptionally narrow requirements is common when hiring internationally to get an H1B visa.

Tim

[linux-works]

tim has the right answer.

in silicon valley (which it seems is almost entirely imported labor, at this point, sigh) its the NORM to list specifics for a single person they already wanted to hire, but have to list the job in public for due process.  been there, seen it, didn't bother with the tee shirt

and while employers don't need a reason not to hire you, you can still cause them trouble if you bring them in front of court.  you probably won't win, but companies still don't want to take any more risks than they have to.  so, they list impossible-to-meet criteria (for most people) and already have someone (cough) 'affordable' in mind.

the tech labor market is going to hell and we are all watching it happen ;(

[WarSim]

Dumb.

Dumb? Au contraire.

The reason that most companies set such unrealistic requirements is simply for legal reasons, in case an applicant feels jilted about not getting the job and tries to establish a legal case for whatever reason, thinking that he/she should have been hired.

Then the company can claim insufficient credentials.

Dunno where you heard that but it's not true.

As an employer, I don't need a reason not to hire someone, and companies don't spend time thinking up ways to justify not hiring someone.  Furthermore, creating fake requirements would be idiotically counterproductive as it would keep otherwise qualified candidates away.

The world is not nearly as complicated as some folks believe it to be.

Yes that is true in most cases but there are some unique situations.  For example government positions are often over written to give a reason to not accept the people they don't want.  The term used is best fit, but that is rarely the case.  It is blatantly obvious when job posting requirements are vastly different from the authorized job description.  Don't include job description requirements and require unrelated experience assigned to other positions. 

Basically the lazy way to circumvent the system in place to gain the best person for the job. 



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk