Putting less years of experience on resume to meet job requirements

Unknown

Just looking for everyones input. I was looking on job boards and one thing I've seen more then once was for a Mid level role it must have at the most 3 years of experience. I wondered what if I a high level guy was laid off and looking for work. Would it be terrible if that person changed the responsibilities of past jobs on his resume to tailor to that requirement. For example if he really had 6 years of experience and made it look as if it he only had 3.

Akaricloud

I think in that case you'd be better off looking for a better match. Taking a job below your skill level(and likely pay) is only going to hurt both you and the employer in the long run. You'll quickly feel undervalued and underutilized which is likely to lead to a very short stay.

Years of experience on these mean nothing, actual knowledge and experience is what counts.

networker050184

Lying on your resume is never a good idea. I've never seen a job posting that says no more than x years of experience anyway.

NetworkVeteran

Lying on your resume is never a good idea. I've never seen a job posting that says no more than x years of experience anyway.

+1. That's an insta-discard. The best you could do ethically, would be to show your last employer, rather than your last 2-3 employers. That way you are not making any false claims, but only showcasing what you want to on your resume.

Legacy User

I've seen it in 2 software developer positions. My take on it that they don't want to pay the big bucks for a high level guy. But after reading it was a bit put off and wondered why does it have to be a maximum of x amount of years. So I began thinking subjectively what if I was laid off and was applying to every position that suits my skills and was getting desperate. Would I omit information to apply to a lower level job to pay the bills? What would be the disadvantage of doing so? The market is extremely competitive flooded with so many unemployed techs, etc going for the same job so just wondered what would others do given the situation.

networker050184

The disadvantage is lying to a potential employer. If they find out do you think they are going to offer you a job?

NetworkVeteran

dmarcisco wrote: »

I've seen it in 2 software developer positions. My take on it that they don't want to pay the big bucks for a high level guy.

That's often based on a misconception, that when you hire someone "cheap", the project costs less. When I did contract software development, my high rate was often a concern. The solution was convincing them that when they hired me, their project was more likely to be completed on-budget, on-time, and well than if they were to go with someone else.

Legacy User

NetworkVeteran wrote: »

The solution was convincing them that when they hired me, their project was more likely to be completed on-budget, on-time, and well than if they were to go with someone else.

Thats an excellent point. I wasn't aware you did software development.

Codyy

I say go for it, it's not like you're saying you have more experience than you really do. This is just a little white lie, no harm. And what if they do find out that you have more experience, they going to fire you? "Hey we found out you have more experience than what you told us, you're fired". Yeah... I don't see the conversation going that way at all.

instant000

I really don't encourage it. They may be trying to slot in someone who can grow in the position. If you have six years of experience (depending on what that experience is), that might not be as likely.

You may be targeting the wrong positions, as others have stated.

Also, not all experience is equal. Someone once said that a person had ten years of experience, but the truth is that the person had one year of experience x 10 -- that is, doing the same stuff for ten years.

Hope this gives you some perspective.

gbadman

instant000 wrote: »

Also, not all experience is equal. Someone once said that a person had ten years of experience, but the truth is that the person had one year of experience x 10 -- that is, doing the same stuff for ten years.

This is so very true. And it's one of the reasons why more than 2-3 years in the same role in the same company rarely offers much added experience. Many places have a role-based culture, meaning that the parameters of your work and the possible scope of your contribution are clearly defined. The scope of your work, and hence the level of your experience, can only be increased by displacing a guy in another role. So it's in his interests that you're not exposed to or do anything above your station. Not all places work like this, of course, but many do, and in places like that, it's often wise to move on after 2-3 years unless you're content to remain a stagnant part of the machinery.

NetworkVeteran

Codyy wrote: »

I say go for it, it's not like you're saying you have more experience than you really do.

In both cases, you're lying to pretend you meet the job requirements when you don't. The harm is you've potentially wasted the employer's time (considering your resume, multiple interviewers, etc.) and demonstrated low integrity.

And what if they do find out that you have more experience, they going to fire you? "Hey we found out you have more experience than what you told us, you're fired". Yeah... I don't see the conversation going that way at all.

You mean, when this is caught during the interviewing / background check stage?

My internal conversation would be closer to, "It turns out he lied on his resume. If he lied about this, what else did he lie about? We have a good team; I don't think we need to add someone like that. I'll go ahead and update HR."

The candidate would just know we passed on him.