It's their job to say "no", and your job to submit your application.

I would recommend against obvious mismatches (ie: 10yr experience v. 1yr), but if you're hitting 50%+, and especially 75%+ of advertised requirements, then it's not a bad thing to submit your resume.

Yes. In fact, I would advise against applying to roles where you fit every bullet point. Especially as entry level, where's the new challenges going to come from? Look for a role that's going to test you. Expand your knowledge bubble a bit more and go for roles that fit some percentage below 100% that you are comfortable with.

Job postings are wishlists. Especially in this hypercompetitive market, employers will be happy to find a dev with 2/3rds of requirements. The more varied experience you have, the less having all the skills listed matters because you've shown you can learn things.

Especially with super specific skills which are unlikely to known by many people... It's either the main requirement and you have no chance in hell if you don't have it, and anyone with that skill will get the job regardless of their other skills, or it's something you can learn on the job and they just put it out there as a plus for people who can be onboarded faster.

Many people are saying yes, and I agree, but have an additional point.

If a job has a specific piece of software listed, i.e. Salesforce CRM, google the painpoints or ask people who do it ahead of time. When someone in the interview asks you about it, dont say "I CAN LEARN ANYTHING!", say.... "I understand the learning curve is hard because of X, but I'll just have to put the time in to pick it up quickly".

It's like jobs that ask for "Chef, Ansible, and Puppet". A recruiter explained these are usually a typo s/and/or, where they're looking for that type of automation experience. A good rule of thumb is to apply when you can do 50% to 80% of the job. Also, find if they're looking for someone to "grow into the job", or a SME to take over ongoing projects.

Recruiters are almost always non-technical - when they start to learn what we do, they become us, and find their own jobs. They are more likely to get lost in the "alphabet soup" of acronyms we treat as a "techie cant". And the hiring manager might not have been clear in the job posting. Best to get it directly from the source.

Your resume is a key to unlock the first few interview loops, where you can actually talk to people, find what they're looking for, and customize your pitch so you meet their current needs. Remember that companies are run by humans, not machines. Almost every hiring process is going to be steeped in NIH and defensiveness.

It's definitely worth it. The longer and more specific the list of requirements gets, the less likely it is that any one person meets all of them. Recruiters actually have a funny term for such a person, a Purple Squirrel. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_squirrel)

Yes you should.

1. The descriptions are often incomplete or emphasize the wrong skills.

2. Needs change

3. You may have some skills they don't know they need

4. There might be no one else out there who meets 100% of the specs as written.

Also, read this:

https://hbr.org/2014/08/why-women-dont-apply-for-jobs-unless...

As others have said, the answer is yes. It is so rare that someone will meet every listed "requirement" on a job posting. In the best case scenarios the companies are shooting for the moon in terms of what candidates they'd like. In the worst case scenarios they know no one can measure up and use the lack of fit as leverage in salary negotiations. Either way you should apply and see if they interview/make an offer.

> I'm not familiar with the software, but have no doubts that I can pick up anything quickly.

I know what I can pick up quickly and I know what would be a new paradigm for me. You give them an honest estimate about how long it will take to ramp up on their specific software and you'll be fine.

Who's to say what's going through the mind of the person who wrote that job advertisement? If it sounds like work you'd like to do, it couldn't hurt to submit an application. If you don't hear back, you're not what they were looking for. The fact that you don't have what they posted for may be a deal breaker, but then again, it may not.

As a word of caution, a lot of overly-specific job postings are written with an internal hire in mind. HR departments often require that a public posting be made, but the manager seeking to fill the position writes it in such a way that it's basically impossible for an external applicant to satisfy the requirements. Unfortunately, there's no way of knowing, so you might as well apply.

Yes, and to add to what others said: in cover letter say "I can do X and Y and Z and I'm a quick learner too", then give a real-world example of learning something new quickly. This will help reduce the perceived risk.

Applying for a job is a marketing exercise, you're trying to convince them that you are the specialized person they need. So if you're missing one specialized skill they mention, try to find another to emphasize... ideally one that other candidates don't. More here: https://codewithoutrules.com/2017/01/19/specialist-vs-genera...

Most of the job hunting advice I've read (in books like "The Hidden Job Market" and "What Color is Your Parachute") suggests finding your niche/passion first and then looking beyond posted jobs. So instead of blasting your resume to every job post that's halfway relevant (which everyone else is doing) you are basically pinpointing your dream job and networking your way into it.

The reason why job posts like the one you're talking about have such specific requirements is because they get 100s of applications for each role and have to have some way to filter them.

Absolutely. You should apply to any job 1) you want and 2) you have some chance of getting. Of course it's likely this job is already "wired" for someone who already works there, and they're only posting it because their hiring process says they have to. But even if that's the case, it's not impossible the proverbial lightening will strike and you'll get it anyway.

We had a job opening that was opened specifically for a contractor we wanted to hire. But the guy messed something up (drug test, interview, background check, etc) and someone from the outside got the job.

Of course you should. You should be looking for a job you can grow into, not a job you fit perfectly today. Any company worth it's salt knows this, although some HR reps don't get the message. If they aren't interested in you because you don't match their unicorn list, it's probably not going to be a place you would enjoy working at.

Great question. Following not apply exactly to OP, but for female or HNers or anyone who writes job descriptions and values diversity... We recently discovered this is one of those subtle things that can trip-up diverse hiring. Came up as one of the biggest revelations in a recent diversity and inclusion workshop at my company. A senior-level man was explaining how we would _never_ apply to a job where he had all the qualifications, because to him that "would just be a lateral move" what would he gain or learn from this new role? At which point several women were astonished to hear this as it had apparently never something they would have considered to apply for a job they weren't fully confident they had 100% of the qualifications.

I've seen people land jobs that clearly don't fit the requirements in the job description. The job description is usually shaped by HR, not the hiring manager alone. And they are just guidelines unless stated others (i.e. "must have more than 5 years experience").

The short version is yes, it is worth applying. If you're trying to get into a niche market, there will only be so many opportunities available. If you only apply to things for which you feel qualified, you may eliminate your chances altogether.

Let's look at it from the employer's perspective. The employer doesn't maintain a blacklist of "bad match" applicants. The employer simply has a yes, no, and maybe pile. If you are a yes, you get the interview. If you are a maybe, you get the interview if there aren't enough applicants in the yes pile. Everyone in the no pile simply doesn't make it, but could a yes or maybe for a different position.

My big break into software development was because no one else was in the yes pile, and I the strongest (maybe the only) maybe.

Consider actively inspecting each "requirement" for relative importance.

For example, I recently read a job posting where "experience with subdomains" was sandwiched between "required 2 years exp with rails" and "postgresql". For people who haven't touched domain configuration, working with subdomains and basic DNS configurations is an absolutely trivial task.

So perhaps the missing requirement is actually something that could be picked up in a matter of minutes and isn't a deal breaker nor relatively important.

Regardless, you should apply.

Yes.

Job descriptions never encapsulate everything, either completely or necessarily accurately. They were just written by some guy, and it's amazing how bad a lot of these people are at the hiring/job search process.

This is especially true for entry level. This means they don't expect you to hit the ground running. If your skills are related, you absolutely should apply.

You should also ignore most "x years" requirements. Just apply to the right class: junior, mid, or senior. Start applying for senior when you think you're a mid-mid.

Yes, that will give you a chance to grow professionally. Doing same things even in new job is a safe bet but you will stop growing you career. Over a career of 20-25 years you should play different roles and jumping into jobs for which you are not 100% prepared will give you motivation to acquire those skills more quickly than other people. You will notice that after some time because you worked on different things, you will have much broad perspective on anything compared to your peers.

Yes,don`t limit yourself-unless applying to Google or similar(not even then),many companies`s HR departments are a joke with job postings by people with very little technical knowledge.

As my hockey coach would say, you miss 100% of shots you don't take. The market right now is very tight, and hiring managers should know to hire on potential. Make sure you research the software ahead of time and try to analogize with something you've done before: "it seems like it's X that I've worked with before." I've found that works in cases like this. Go for it. At the very least, if you get in the door, it's interview practice.

Yes, apply for jobs you do not fit 100% into, onsite training will bring you up to speed on anything you are unfamiliar with. All companies will train their employees if need be.

Absolutely. The requirements in tech job postings are usually the result of a game of telephone between the hiring manager and an HR person. They often don't even reflect what the hiring manager actually wants.

If you see a job posting that looks perfect except for some oddball requirement you don't meet, always go for it anyway. Much of the time the people interviewing you don't even know what the job posting contained, much less agree with the oddball requirements.

If you have not learned this already through experience, you would be shocked, SHOCKED, to find out what you can get in this world by simply asking for it.

Absolutely. I can tell you from experience, on both sides of this fence, that hiring managers ask for the moon, and rarely get everything. But, that's not the point. A manager wants staff that can do the job as necessary, and you can prove that you're able to during interviews - even if you only match a few of the "bullet points" in the hire req.

I don't suggest lying, but there are plenty of times that the "requirements" are really just a suggestion. There's no law saying that they have to call you if they think you're not qualified, and there's no law saying that have to accept you after an interview.

When I'm looking for a job, I basically apply to any posting that looks interesting to me.

What others have said, even take it a step further. Look up the company and that software will Likely ID the team members on LinkedIn. Message one of them/manager with your interest and resume. Hopefully that'll shorten the waiting process or hoping that a recruiter will review your application.

Once, I saw an ad that HR wrote (with my input) looking for someone I would then train. Judging from the ad HR wrote, I was not qualified for the job.

Don't take that stuff too seriously. If you think you can do the job that needs done, apply. The worst that can happen is they'll say no.

Follow the 70/30 rule. You should be able to do around 70% of the job with knowledge you already have.

Yes. What is the worst that can happen? If you don't apply you won't get the job either.

If you want the job, apply for it.

If you don't want the job, don't apply for it.

Show them that you will add value to the company, and that you are keen to engage with the work, the product, the customers' requirements, and getting things done.

Artefacts of hiring like resumes, job postings are broken. Job postings especially are a mess and bad ones drive people away instead of attracting talent. Don't read much into it. Apply.

Unless you're applying to Rockwell, you'll be using, configuring, or talking to ProductionCentre. It's end user software. You'll figure it out.

Apply.

Yes. You know how product requirements are 70% accurate at best, and usually closer to 30%? Job requirements are the same.

YES.

Just put more info into a cover letter to say what you're interested in doing.

Yes

Yes.