I once applied for a job where one of the requirements was “minimum 5 to 10 years experience in X”. My friend told me to submit a CV saying I have 3 to 6 years experience in X and see if they shortlist me.
I once applied for a job where one of the requirements was “minimum 5 to 10 years experience in X”. My friend told me to submit a CV saying I have 3 to 6 years experience in X and see if they shortlist me.
The higher bound is an indication of maximum salary. It’s saying “we need at least 5 years experience, but if you have 30, we’re paying you like you have 5.”
Is this something that you know, or that you’re assuming?
Note that in both cases it only reinforces what I said about clarity. If the higher bound of the range:
I’ve been hiring people for 10 years. Before it was common to post salaries, this was a good way to not waste people’s time interviewing for jobs below their rate.
It’s in the requirement section because that’s the section we are able to modify on the stupid Excel sheet that the recruiters force us to use.
Got it - then you know it. However it’s unreasonable to expect that the appliers should also know it*, and it still shouldn’t be listed as a requirement. (Even if the ones to blame are the recruiters, not you guys.)
*specially given that everyone is reading this stuff in a different way. You’re doing it as “preferable 10 years”, @phoenixz@lemmy.ca as “at most 10 years”, so goes on.
That’s why I’m explaining it, yes. So more people can know it.
The job hunt is like any other hobby or skill. Some bits are obvious and written down. Some bits are learned by talking to other people who have done it.
This “skill” seems as relevant for most jobs as being able to read a horoscope. Sure, it’s technically a skill, but it shouldn’t be there as a “hidden requirement” on first place.
[inb4 I’m aware that you said in another comment that you aren’t “saying it’s the right way to do it.” I’m talking about the shitty approach being shitty, not blaming you.]
Removed by mod
I’m solely being cooperative. Yes, there’s a reasonable chance that the other poster is lying, and I have no way to know it, and I’m not too eager to assume it (like braindead trash would). Nor I’m willing to assume what whoever wrote OP’s example is trying to convey.
However, for the sake of the argument, it doesn’t matter.
So no, contrariwise to what you’re assuming (i.e. making up), I’m not being naive or an ignorant.
Now, if you want to assume things about other posters, instead of discussing the topic at hand, could you please go be a dead weight elsewhere? Like in Reddit?
Wow what a totally unhinged and incoherent response. Thanks.
Talk about apologist conjecture.
I’ve hired people for a decade. I’m explaining why it’s there. I’m not saying it’s the right way to do it. Just that this is the way it’s done.
More skills and expertise = more money