Ask HN: Why does it feel like qualifications are irrelevant to hirers? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Why does it feel like qualifications are irrelevant to hirers?

2 pointshdhdhsjsbdh4 comments

I’m not talking about the job hunt grind, sending your perfect resume into the void of online job postings and getting no responses.

I’m talking about inbounds from recruiters, for senior level roles, where you have a long trail of quantifiable accomplishments and a good network. I am not looking for a job, but I do often take calls just to see what’s out there, and I am rejected every time. It makes me curious (and also sympathetic to people actively seeking).

I have numbers to back up my accomplishments, too. GitHub stars, citation counts, exits, etc. I talk to hiring managers who are leading tech areas that I have direct, quantifiable impact in from past experience. They might even be building on tech that I developed! I have a screen and maybe don’t answer a pop quiz perfectly, but you can look at the numbers and see I’m not bullshitting.

Is the hiring process really so detached from reality now that no other factor but your interview performance is the determinant?

I know what they say about every room smelling like shit… but I have never had bad relationships with my colleagues. So I’m not sure if that’s it.

It's not you.

From the viewpoint of the applicant, the probability of anybody even reading your resume declines as the number of applicants skyrockets.

This has been going on for a while and nobody can deny that the chance of any one person getting hired keeps decreasing because of that. This is what anybody can notice right away.

Both employers and applicants have had to face the dramatic loss in ability to select a suitable candidate, not nearly as well as the established hiring process used to be capable of.

Lots of candidates have already accepted that there were almost no chances left for them to select the most appropriate employer from a variety of outstanding opportunities. And so many times the ideal employer is one to which specific qualifications match the candidate best. That ship sailed a long time ago.

The candidates who can compromise and go outside their established background have the best chance since that might be the only openings on the market. After a while employers get accustomed to it, and it sinks in that qualifications are not as important as they thought they were, even if it's not true.

They're not going to find the perfect employee no matter what they do, as long as it's too crowded.

Now it looks like that attitude has crept down the applicant funnel all the way to those who achieve the most promising interview milestone.

In the best case scenario you're still talking to somebody who can be almost 100% sure that you are not the ideal candidate before you even walk in the door. No matter what your qualifications are. The system has already screened that rare bird right out of the dataset, and they know it. It's just too crowded and it's been that way for a while.

If things don't turn around, more of these employer ships will be leaving the dock too, destination unknown :\

You don't game the system, you need a workaround. If you know someone working at a decent company these networking contacts are better than ever, get you in the door and talk to somebody who doesn't expect a perfect qualification match as much as they would before either.

Depending on where you go and how lucky you get playing the odds of course :\

For corporate software the only real qualifications are years of experience and frequency of job hopping. That is it.

If you want qualifications to mean something software is not your thing.

interview performance is 90% of landing a job offer. the other half is merit.

So why are we still telling ourselves this process is used to assess suitability for a job? Is it not just a hazing process? Maybe tech sucks because people who take the abuse or game the system outnumber the results oriented

Reply on news.ycombinator.com