Job Requirements getting out of control?

Snow.bros

apr911 wrote: »

but you have to bring a value to the company in someway for the company to truly consider.

Could you be specific as to what kind of value you might add in for the company to consider you, especially in a stand point of a entry level applicant with light amount of experience.

maxpowers

I think a lot of job descriptions are made by the HR people, who would often throw a bit of everything in. I've applied for jobs with about 40% of the requirements and got the interview. As soon as you're in the door, it's your chance to prove that you know your stuff, hard and soft skills.

JoJoCal19

apr911 wrote: »

I disagree. There are still plenty of places offering on the job training but you have to bring a value to the company in someway for the company to truly consider.

At my current company, I moved over from a SysAd role in Windows to a Network Admin role with no experience. I brought value in the form of an existing employee with a good history, work ethic, demonstrated ability to learn quickly and the fact that I could still double as a SysAd when called for.

Still at my current company, we routinely hire people with little experience and train them up. They bring value in the willingness to learn and they generally take pay that's 30% lower than what the position would pay a seasoned person in the same "Jr Admin" role. We do this so much in fact that there is now an ongoing argument between management and the "Sr Admins" to stop or at least slow the practice. Management wants to continue because it looks good on their budget sheets to get 3 to 5 people for the same annual amount as 1 or 2 experienced or senior level admins. The Sr Admins want to stop it or slow it down because the headcount increase is causing the perception of "you have more heads, you can do more work" when in reality the Sr Admins workload is now doubled or even tripled because the new heads are next to useless and need to be trained by the Sr Admins all while the Sr Admins maintain the current (and increasing) work flow.


Really when it comes right down to it, you need to bring something to the table to be wanted and worth the investment on OJT. Too often people enter IT thinking its a road to a quick 6 figure paycheck and its not. Its a meritocracy and some hot-shot who's never touched a production network in their life isn't getting anywhere near my network until they've proven themselves capable and in the meantime, they better be willing to pay attention, learn and not expect to make what I make.

I still receive regular OJT for things that both fall under my purview as a Network Admin and for things that dont (recently received OJT for RedHat because I requested it). But then I have brought value to the company in the past and continue to bring value now and in the future by being able to apply that OJT to my everyday position regardless of if it falls in my purview or not.

Yes, there will always be companies that are either too cheap to pay and want to fill the position with paying as little as possible, or don't have a choice but to save money from a budget standpoint. But that is far from the norm. If anything, companies want both to hire someone with some experience AND pay as little as possible. Typically the companies that do bring in someone with no experience at dirt cheap pay like you've explained, also don't increase pay much if at all, once the person learns the job and is very capable. Those are the people that leave for greener pastures.

linuxlover

Snow.bros wrote: »

Could you be specific as to what kind of value you might add in for the company to consider you, especially in a stand point of a entry level applicant with light amount of experience.

Intelligence in the first place. Ability to approach solving problems when you don't know the answer to them. Hard working and hungry for knowledge and success and wanting to stay long-term. I guess people are afraid of investing time and money into someone who will use them as a jumping board to a higher paying job elsewhere after gaining experience.

jeremywatts2005

I can remember back in 98 when I graduated with my AAS and no certs, I was scooped before graduation. I went to work with Rockwell as an ACD Telecommunications Technician. I worked on networks, servers and ACD call switches. Great job and then in 2002 I got laid off. I went a year without finding work. I had a ton of certs in proprietary Rockwell systems. Then I managed to pick up with a point of sale company and started working for my BS. I also got my A+ and Network+ then I was laid off again. I went to work as a Server Tech and still was finishing my BS and working to MCSE this was in 2005. Going nowhere I was getting desperate to actually make more than 40K a year. Katrina hit in New Orleans and I left the server tech job and went into federal contracting. I finished my BS and never my MCSE, but acquired Security+. I did contract work till 2007 and then that is when I noticed the market really sagging. I went into proprietary education as I finished my Masters in InfoSec.

I worked in that field as a Chair and Dean until 2013. By then I had started a second Masters from Champlain. I picked up as a Pen tester in Baton Rouge for $68K that was 2K more than I made as a Dean. 5 months in then I got a position for $73K and I took that for two months. Finally a federal contract opened in my area for digital forensics. I managed to get on with my 2 Masters degrees and A+, N+ and S+. Plus I have tons of experience in field and in management.

The salary I make is 80K on a straight 40 hr week. I work on an hourly basis though and my overtime figures in another $20K a year. The moral is look at everything I had to do just to make a $100K. Back in the day (1990's) a guy with 2 Masters degree, BS and an AAS all n IT / Infosec and digital forensics could have made way more than I do now. Someone told me to go get some certs. I asked what for so I can make $105 a yr and have to renew them every three yrs? It is totally crazy the requirements for a position.

I also noticed that I had to bounce around to get to my desired salary. This is the craziest market I have ever seen. I will say I am one of the highest paid on the contract and I am a lead also. Some folks though make close to what I make (65K - 70K) but are salaried and do not get the over time. The problem with them is that they have certs but I feel like I have to school the all the time. The old dog may not have the certs but my experience beats most of them.

devils_haircut

Speaking of job requirements, I wanted to share this little gem I saw while looking at how in-demand RHCSA is in my area:


And I quote:

• Redhat certification required. Minimum RHCSA, RHCE preferred. (RHCSA or RHCE a strong plus)

...?

tjb122982

jvrlopez wrote: »

Took a look around today and saw "CCNA/CNNP/CCIE or Linux+ required. Pay $40000"

This is a non-sarcastic question: should I assume that is a horrible low ball offer?

W Stewart

You know, the funny thing is, it seems like a lot of companies at least in my area(where people seem to think there are no good paying IT jobs or any IT jobs at all), are having just as hard of a time finding good people at least on the linux side of things. Most of the jobs I've had or been considered for but turned down required 5 years of experience and I currently only have 2.5 with linux and 3 years in IT altogether. Not only that, but every time I talk to another recruiter, I go higher and higher with the salary and it always seems to be within the companies budget. It's almost as if I have the leverage here by being a qualified candidate.

JDMurray

I think people searching for jobs are taking the requirements in job postings too literally. Hiring managers are casting a wide net of requirements in hopes of getting a single candidate that has the skills and works ethic of 2-3 employees. People that can do the work of two or three are a great cost savings to a businesses, especially if the candidate comes pre-trained and pre-certified.

Don't get hung up on not having the education or skills in a job posting, or that the cert requirements asked for don't make sense. (You know more about certs now than the people who wrote the job posting ever will.) If the job looks interesting to you and it's in a good geographical area and the pay range is acceptable then close your eyes and submit your resume. Only the hiring manager can decide if you will get a first round interview or not.

N2IT

I agree with JD to a certain extent but if they ask for skills X, Y and Z and you can't deliver you could find yourself gone especially in a small to mid size company or MSP.

A lot of this comes down to individuals. How quickly you learn, can you pick up technologies quickly and apply them with the same amount of speed.

I personally think it's risky business applying for positions that are asking for skills you don't possess. Even if you are able to charm the interviewer, those feelings could soon fade if your work load is falling back in your bosses or co workers laps.

I personally apply for jobs I am 80% qualified for. No need to put myself in a situation where I am unable to deliver.

daviddws

Thanks for the feedback. This is really getting into the heart of my original comments. The market has made meeting requirements almost impossible. How much is enough, before a hiring manager is ready to take a chance on you performing well? There was a time not long ago where you could meet 80% of the requirements and learn the rest OJT. For instance there was a position that I was a good fit for a couple of years ago, but the hiring managers were stuck on me not having an ITIl cert. Never mind the fact I have 2 master degrees and 12 certifications. It was the ITIL cert that really mattered. Now if they were to give me 6 months to get it, no problem. But that was not an option as they were looking for the perfect candidate. Job Searching would be a incredible waste of time, unless it wasnt so necessary to survive.

W Stewart

N2IT wrote: »

I agree with JD to a certain extent but if they ask for skills X, Y and Z and you can't deliver you could find yourself gone especially in a small to mid size company or MSP.

A lot of this comes down to individuals. How quickly you learn, can you pick up technologies quickly and apply them with the same amount of speed.

I personally think it's risky business applying for positions that are asking for skills you don't possess. Even if you are able to charm the interviewer, those feelings could soon fade if your work load is falling back in your bosses or co workers laps.

I personally apply for jobs I am 80% qualified for. No need to put myself in a situation where I am unable to deliver.

That's what the interview process is for. As long as you're completely honest about your skill set, then you should have nothing to worry about. I'd say if you think you can do the job then just apply and be honest. Leave it up to the company to decide if they really need somebody with exactly 5 years of experience rather than 2 or 3. If push comes to shove and they take you because you were the most qualified applicant then they'll train you on what you don't know.

Edit: But i'd say 80% isn't a bad number though. I just wouldn't be set on number of years since some people pick things up faster than others.

W Stewart

daviddws wrote: »

Thanks for the feedback. This is really getting into the heart of my original comments. The market has made meeting requirements almost impossible. How much is enough, before a hiring manager is ready to take a chance on you performing well? There was a time not long ago where you could meet 80% of the requirements and learn the rest OJT. For instance there was a position that I was a good fit for a couple of years ago, but the hiring managers were stuck on me not having an ITIl cert. Never mind the fact I have 2 master degrees and 12 certifications. It was the ITIL cert that really mattered. Now if they were to give me 6 months to get it, no problem. But that was not an option as they were looking for the perfect candidate. Job Searching would be a incredible waste of time, unless it wasnt so necessary to survive.

Companies like that will probably continue turning down qualified applicants in search of the perfect candidate until they realize that he either doesn't exist or just isn't looking for employment at the moment. Eventually those companies will have to start accepting candidates that don't meet all of the requirements so that the position can be filled. I've seen it all the time and being able to pick up on things fast will be your greatest advantage at that point.

JDMurray

Always remember that 50% of the interview is you interviewing the hiring manager(s) and the company itself. If they hire you they have to live up to your expectations too. When you realize this, you will walk into interviews with confidence as if you are there to audit them and they do not want to be found lacking in worthiness of hiring you. If you approach a job interview with desperation or trepidation, as if the manager is doing you a really big favor by hiring you, then you stand a good chance of either not getting a job you fit well in or taking a job you should have passed on.

andeporter

JDMurray wrote: »

Always remember that 50% of the interview is you interviewing the hiring manager(s) and the company itself. If they hire you they have to live up to your expectations too. When you realize this, you will walk into interviews with confidence as if you are there to audit them and they do not want to be found lacking in worthiness of hiring you. If you approach a job interview with desperation or trepidation, as if the manager is doing you a really big favor by hiring you, then you stand a good chance of either not getting a job you fit well in or taking a job you should have passed on.

Excellent points! As a fairly green manager it didn't take too long to recognize that candidates who asked questions and took a vested interest in the interview process quickly catch our attention.

goldenlight

I thought Internships were the new entry level job??


Serious though if you think you can do the position by all means apply for it.

roch_greg

There is new term for the "perfect candidate" that employers are looking for. It's call a pink squirrel. Many companies are adding more and more technologies which aren't in similar disciplines but aren't willing to expand their staff. Many may think that if it has anything to do with a computer then that one computer person they hire should be able to knock it out.

Master Of Puppets

I am yet to see many of the problems mentioned here when it comes to jobs for programmers. Where I live, they would take a blind monkey with 1 hand as long as it has heard about programming and people I know from other parts of the world tell a similar story. Also, they would not just hire you, they would also give you a good salary.

They take you from very early and train you for everything. There is a great demand for people in this field and it will likely nor decrease any time soon. However, for the typical net/sys admin, things don't look as good as they do for developers.

JoJoCal19

Master Of Puppets wrote: »

I am yet to see many of the problems mentioned here when it comes to jobs for programmers. Where I live, they would take a blind monkey with 1 hand as long as it has heard about programming and people I know from other parts of the world tell a similar story. Also, they would not just hire you, they would also give you a good salary.

They take you from very early and train you for everything. There is a great demand for people in this field and it will likely nor decrease any time soon. However, for the typical net/sys admin, things don't look as good as they do for developers.

I have also seen programming languages make their way into more and more non-programming job listings.

NicWhite

Master Of Puppets wrote: »

I am yet to see many of the problems mentioned here when it comes to jobs for programmers. Where I live, they would take a blind monkey with 1 hand as long as it has heard about programming and people I know from other parts of the world tell a similar story. Also, they would not just hire you, they would also give you a good salary.

They take you from very early and train you for everything. There is a great demand for people in this field and it will likely nor decrease any time soon. However, for the typical net/sys admin, things don't look as good as they do for developers.

Can you speak more on this? Where do you live? What languages are most desired?

JDMurray

JoJoCal19 wrote: »

I have also seen programming languages make their way into more and more non-programming job listings.

Some possible reasons for situations like this in job postings are businesses that are thinking about:

• implementing a technology new to their organization (e.g., Linux, VoIP, PKI),
• dropping one vendor for another vendor not currently used (e.g., switching from Cisco to Juniper),
• moving a process in-house that is currently out-sourced (e.g., software development),
• outsourcing a process that is currently in-house (e.g., moving internal security work to a Managed Security Service).

All of these things cause hiring managers to put requirements in their job postings for knowledge, skills, and experience that the company doesn't currently need, but may in the future. The business is prudently fishing the employment waters for the current number of available hires with those specializations. As an example, there's no use moving to Linux if you can't find Linux admins to hire.

jibbajabba

Not just the requirements, the recruiter getting out of control as well. I had someone talking to me half an hour about vSphere, Hyper-V and Citrix, just then to ask me if I got experience with virtualization . ..

Which reminds me :

What If Drivers Were Hired Like Programmers?

daviddws

JoJoCal19 wrote: »

I have also seen programming languages make their way into more and more non-programming job listings.

I've noticed this as well. If I have another recruiter ask me If I know C#, C++ I'm going to throw something at him.

JDMurray

Now that is an example of a recruiter having multiple job openings and s/he determining into which ones you may fit. Maybe currently there are more programming jobs available than programmers looking for work.

--chris--

jibbajabba wrote: »

Not just the requirements, the recruiter getting out of control as well. I had someone talking to me half an hour about vSphere, Hyper-V and Citrix, just then to ask me if I got experience with virtualization . ..

Which reminds me :

What If Drivers Were Hired Like Programmers?

Fantastic.

tjb122982

I'm not sure if anyone has noticed this but it seems that government and school district jobs requirements are more straight forward. Most of them ask for either a GED, AAS or maybe a 4 year degree. A lot of them do ask for A+ and Network+.

Mishra

Here is my job position I wrote (still looking by the way).

Systems Engineer II - Evolver, Inc. - Reston, VA | dice.com - 5-13-2014

As you notice, here are the actual "requirements"

Minimum Qualifications and Requirements:

• Minimum of 1-3 years of experience in Systems Engineering.
• Must be a self-starter with the ability to provide database, network, storage, security solutions, and technical management with little or no direct supervision.
• Demonstrate working knowledge of Windows Server fundamentals.
• Strong communication skills - written and verbal. The ability to organize and clearly present weekly, monthly, and overall data trends using all resources provided.
• Excellent problem solving and decision making skills required.
• Must be able to lift 50 to 75 lbs. and work in tight spaces.
• All Degrees and Certifications will be evaluated and considered.

bdub

Market doesnt seem flooded here, we just hired a new team member and our recruiter only found 4-5 people for us to interview and the only guy who was really all that qualified was the guy we hired.