Lack all the required skills - don't bother?

Tarzana

I've always heard it said that a job spec is an employer's wish list, and they likely won't get everything they want from any candidate.

But what do you make of the 'Required Skills' section? Do you think you need to have everything on that list to bother applying?

One thing I've noticed from all the many interviews I've done in the last few years is that there seems to be much less "taking a chance" on a candidate these days, I suppose because employers are spoiled for choice and simply don't need to. Taking a chance on someone is an added risk, I guess.

So, is there any point if you don't have all the required skills? Can you still win someone over on an application through showing your interest in the company and job, and demonstrating your transferable skills and all-round deadliness? :pac:

shruikan2553

It depends. I would never apply to a job looking for a .NET developer but I might apply for one as a web developer that also wants perl (I dont know perl)

Some skills are more required than others.

Sugar Free

Tarzana wrote: »

So, is there any point if you don't have all the required skills? Can you still win someone over on an application through showing your interest in the company and job, and demonstrating your transferable skills and all-round deadliness? :pac:

In my experience it's been a combination of having enough but not all of the required specs to get to an interview and then really impressing from there on.

So yes, I believe there is definitely still a point. Where the threshold for worth it/not worth it lies is probably dependent on the role, company, level of experience required etc.

visual

Missing one or two skills you could still be in with a shout.

Missing all of the required skills is pushing it too far.

Even if you conned your way in you be under tremendous pressure from day 1 to keep up and fit in. After a short time it would be apparent your the wrong person for the job and will be asked to leave wasting both your time and the company

Tarzana

OOPs! Sorry mods, this was meant for the Work and Jobs forum, could you move it please? Thanks.

Annasopra

Tarzana wrote: »

I've always heard it said that a job spec is an employer's wish list, and they likely won't get everything they want from any candidate.

But what do you make of the 'Required Skills' section? Do you think you need to have everything on that list to bother applying?

One thing I've noticed from all the many interviews I've done in the last few years is that there seems to be much less "taking a chance" on a candidate these days, I suppose because employers are spoiled for choice and simply don't need to. Taking a chance on someone is an added risk, I guess.

So, is there any point if you don't have all the required skills? Can you still win someone over on an application through showing your interest in the company and job, and demonstrating your transferable skills and all-round deadliness? :pac:

Theres always a point in applying. You might have 80% of what they are looking for but that 80% is in more crucial areas. You might have only 1 years experience when they look for 3 but you have experience in otger relevant areas.

humanji

Thread moved to Works & Jobs forum. Please be aware of the change in forum charter.

Wabbit Ears

The job specs put out nowadays need to be treated by both the employer and the candidate as a unrealistic wishlist of the perfect candidate. For the vast number of job specs I've seen anyone with all the required skills would already be working for a hell of a lot more money then is being offered in these jobspecs.

Employers who insist on the perfect worker are the ones we hear about every day in the papers saying they cant find suitable candidates and have roles being left unfilled.

Tarzana

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

The job specs put out nowadays need to be treated by both the employer and the candidate as a unrealistic wishlist of the perfect candidate. For the vast number of job specs I've seen anyone with all the required skills would already be working for a hell of a lot more money then is being offered in these jobspecs.

Employers who insist on the perfect worker are the ones we hear about every day in the papers saying they cant find suitable candidates and have roles being left unfilled.

The biotech/science is the worst. Job specs pretty much all say 7/8 years experience required. And this is for fairly low level jobs that might require maybe 2-3 years to master. Ridiculous!

I'm getting away from the science field (for other reasons) but I don't envy science grads coming out of college these days. I tell any looking for advice to leave the country as I did when looking for my first job in the field after leaving college in 2009.

Sugar Free

Thankfully the situation is changing for science grads with a bit of business sense.

A large number of pharma companies have set up or increased their numbers in the last two years.

More importantly, a lot of this is not simply more manufacturing and lab based jobs but things like supply chain, insights, field force and other career areas that offer a better chance for grads to build a career.

Examples would be Aspen, Alexion, Gerard's parent company, Jazz etc.

Tarzana

Sugar Free wrote: »

Thankfully the situation is changing for science grads with a bit of business sense.

A large number of pharma companies have set up or increased their numbers in the last two years.

More importantly, a lot of this is not simply more manufacturing and lab based jobs but things like supply chain, insights, field force and other career areas that offer a better chance for grads to build a career.

Examples would be Aspen, Alexion, Gerard's parent company, Jazz etc.

Good to hear and noted. The situation was totally ridiculous. LC points have soared for science courses in the last while because of the belief there was a lot of jobs in the area. I was a bit

---

>

Eoin

Tarzana wrote: »

I've always heard it said that a job spec is an employer's wish list, and they likely won't get everything they want from any candidate.

I think this is largely true. When I write a job spec I split up the skills into essential and desirable sections, which I hope makes it a bit clearer for candidates.

And there's a risk that someone applying who does have a lot of experience in every single skill-set listed won't have much opportunity to learn new skills, and therefore not be a longer term prospect.

Tarzana wrote: »

So, is there any point if you don't have all the required skills? Can you still win someone over on an application through showing your interest in the company and job, and demonstrating your transferable skills and all-round deadliness?

If you don't have all of them, but most of them, then there's no harm in applying; provided that it's not obvious from the job description that it's absolutely essential you have those skills from day 1.

Make sure your cover letter can address any concerns they would have.

Tarzana

Eoin wrote: »

I think this is largely true. When I write a job spec I split up the skills into essential and desirable sections, which I hope makes it a bit clearer for candidates.

And there's a risk that someone applying who does have a lot of experience in every single skill-set listed won't have much opportunity to learn new skills, and therefore not be a longer term prospect.



If you don't have all of them, but most of them, then there's no harm in applying; provided that it's not obvious from the job description that it's absolutely essential you have those skills from day 1.

Make sure your cover letter can address any concerns they would have.

Hmmm, ok, this is so helpful!

When you're writing your required lists is there ever things on the list that are absolutely mandatory? Or put another way, if it's mandatory, do you make that clear? Many job specs do, but others don't say any of the required skills are mandatory so it's hard to know. I guess in those cases, I'd apply anyway. But as said, if there's like, 6 required skills, and I only have 2, then I wouldn't bother, except maybe if I had a rare desirable skill or something.

I also think my biggest problem lately is that most of my applications were completely scatter gun and that's always really obvious. :pac: It came from a place of panic. I have job now, low-paying and mind-numbing, but at least it's giving me some breathing room. I'm usually pretty good at the cover letter thing so time to rediscover that skill.

Eoin

Yep, I typically have 2 lists - essential skills and then a list of desirable skills.

If a candidate didn't have the essential skills then I'd expect them to explain in the cover letter how they could make up for that - eg for a technical role, that they know a very similar language or whatever.

Tarzana

Eoin wrote: »

Yep, I typically have 2 lists - essential skills and then a list of desirable skills.

If a candidate didn't have the essential skills then I'd expect them to explain in the cover letter how they could make up for that - eg for a technical role, that they know a very similar language or whatever.

Oh OK, I should be more clear from the start that it's the essential/required skills section I was talking about. Do you get many applications from people who have all the essential/required skills?

Eoin

Tarzana wrote:

Oh OK, I should be more clear from the start that it's the essential/required skills section I was talking about

That's what I'm saying though - if you don't have all the skills that are listed as essential, then make sure you address them specifically in your cover letter.

I didn't always get candidates who had all the essential skills (though I did try and keep these to a minimum). If a candidate made the effort to demonstrate how other skills they have could make up for this, then I'd take that into account. If I just get a CV where I am supposed to try and infer this myself, I'll be less inclined to give it much effort.

Tarzana

Eoin wrote: »

That's what I'm saying though - if you don't have all the skills that are listed as essential, then make sure you address them specifically in your cover letter.

Actually, yeah, I've done this before. Stressed that I didn't have a particular skill but that I've done reading on it and can demonstrate what I've learned. I got an interview! Which was a complete disaster but that's another story. :pac:

sebphoto

Tarzana wrote: »

Actually, yeah, I've done this before. Stressed that I didn't have a particular skill but that I've done reading on it and can demonstrate what I've learned. I got an interview! Which was a complete disaster but that's another story. :pac:

hey, why you think it was complete disaster?

Tarzana

sebphoto wrote: »

hey, why you think it was complete disaster?

I was really nervous and tired on the day. And I never heard from them again.