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.
“Up to 50% off or more!”
That or when the range is so huge as to be meaningless - a $25k-150k range is completely useless.
Thankfully some states in the US have made this illegal, like Colorado.
I don’t usually complain about how people convey what they want, but this one often annoys me a bit - because it’s a matter of clarity.
Some might say “well, there’s uncertainty on the min/max”, but then the higher/lower boundary of the uncertainty doesn’t mean anything. That’s the case here - it’s effectively “minimum 5 years experience”, unless you say what would require more experience.
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.”
The higher bound is an indication of maximum salary.
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:
- is indeed related to the salary - then it is not a requirement, nor should be listed as such
- is related to something else - are they expecting appliers to assume what the range means?
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”, @[email protected] 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.
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.]
Your naivety and ignorance about the way people use language and the way the world works is no one’s responsibility to correct but your’s.
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
I don’t agree. I’m currently looking for a developer with 5-10 years of experience. I don’t want a guy so green he’s grass, I also don’t want someone that has so much experience that he’ll be super expensive and or stuck in their ways. I want someone who knows what they’re doing, but can still learn more.
But then you say 5-10 years experience. Not minimum of 5 to 10 years.
Don’t think they have a problem to hire someone with 12 years experience for the price of 10 years
“5-10 years experience” is a range of time anyone can understand. “MINIMUM 5-10 years” is a range that makes absolutely no sense. Imagine if the speed limit signs in your area said “maximum 35-45 mph” and tell me how fast you’re allowed to drive.
Speed limit signs with ranges would make sense if given some additional clarification by the issuing authority. For example:
- The upper bound is the limit in perfect conditions; the lower bound is the limit when the weather is bad in any way
- The upper bound is the limit when there’s no traffic. The lower bound is the limit when there’s substantial traffic.
- The upper bound is the limit normally. The lower bound is the limit during school hours.
Even without a clarification drivers could probably assume it’s some combination of the above.
(A job description could have the same clarification but probably doesn’t, as “minimum” is just an error on the part of the person writing it. But they could say “5-10 years minimum experience, depending on level and nature of education,” and then a reader could infer that a person with a relevant Master’s degree might need 5 years of experience; a relevant Bachelor’s degree - 6 years minimum; a major in something else - 8 years minimum; only a high school diploma - 10 years minimum.)
Those clarifications are in the driving manual you should have studied to get your license. The posted limit is only accurate under ideal conditions, often being affected by weather and local conditions. In most places you can be ticketed for speeding by driving at the limit during rain or other weather events. Posting a range of numbers would just add clutter and limit readability, the range is implicit on the road because it is explicitly laid out in elsewhere through regulation.
So… You missed the point entirely?
I also don’t want someone that has so much experience that he’ll be super expensive and or stuck in their ways.
In your case 10 is the maximum. There’s no contradiction, as in the OP.
IMO the “stuck in their ways” isn’t about experience at all. It’s about good or bad devs. I’ve seen green devs stuck in their ways.
Sometimes managers or devs who don’t know any better think that knowing the right thing to do is the same as being inflexible, because they don’t understand the rationale since they aren’t experienced programmers.
I think it means that if you have 10 years of experience you are welcome to apply, but they are only willing to pay commensurate to experience up to 10 years.
Probably right, and they don’t need the word minimum at all
I would have assumed that the minimum could change based on the candidates. So if they get a bunch of 10+ year candidates, any 5 year candidates would just be skipped.
Most IT job postings done by recruiters are hilariously bad, I scrolled through some and I’m just like “really? That’s all you’re telling me?”
“expert knowledge in NT, FreeBSD, Cisco IOS, Java, C#, Active Directory, Windows Server, Fortinet”. Uh huh. Just be an expert at everything, I see.
Then you do the interview and they want like 2 of those things and less experience is fine. 🙄
They want the unicorn, they will settle for a horse with a horn taped to its forehead.
“…will you accept a whale that thinks it’s a unicorn?”
A job I’m interviewing for now asked me if I had experience with libvirt, qemu,and KVM.
(For those not in the know, libvirt is a wrapper around qemu, KVM is the name of the technology, so if you have experience with one or both of the first two, you definitely have experience with the last one).
man would it be nice if I could just get to the fucking interview
This is my first interview after 3 months of applying (not every day, mind you, I’ve probably applied to like 300 jobs though). I have another one in the next few days as well, for another company.
LinkedIn Premium does actually seem to help, compared to sites like Dice. Good luck out there, it’s pretty rough right now.
Removed by mod
“Minimum” in this could refer not to the number of years but to the criteria of eligibility. The sentence might mean “At minimum you have to pass the following eligibility criteria: between 5 and 10 years experience.”
If they then give other criteria that you have to match, that’s nonsense :)
Or I suppose it could mean they’re looking for someone with a minimum of five years, and while they’re not looking for someone with more than 10 years they will consider them. “We want someone with (hard minimum of 5) to (soft maximum of 10) years experience.
Is the job for someone to improve the clarity of their communications by any chance?
Your first interpretation wasn’t the case in this specific ad, because the “minimum 5-10 year experience” was on the list of “essential experience and skills” and there was a separate list of “desirables”.
Your second explanation just supports my original infuriation - just state the range that you’re interested in, without calling it a minimum.
Actually, I got that job, I’m still working for the company, but to your last point, I have to say it’s hilarious how bad our communications dept is at communicating to the rest of the company.
I once had a colleague update a shitty webapp we had written to add a message saying “pages loading may take up to a minute or more”
Yeah it’s grammatically incorrect but don’t we know what they mean? They would settle for 5 years experience if they had to, but 10 years is very much preferred and if they felt they could require 10 they would.
Most neurotypical people don’t need everything to be ridigly perfect in definitions. We understand what they meant. I think the objection to this comes from the more autistic type folks. Which isn’t to say they are wrong for being different.
Eh, I am not autistic and I am bothered by a lot of language things. But I also appreciate creativity with words when it gets a point across, especially if it would take 50 more words to get across the meaning that 3 creatively combined words can also communicate.
And offer them that sweet fresh-out-of-college salary
The thing is that despite my original post I actually agree with you and quietly hate myself for being mildly infuriated by this.
I recommend you read my reply to another poster who is mildly infuriated by incorrect grammar.
Or say “an average of” and give a range.
This is just non-math language describing a standard deviation.
You need an average of between 6 years.
Or just give the range.
I, too, am irritated by this.
Because there are uncertainties regarding the minima and maxima? It’s pretty obvious.
This comment is very dumb and frankly quite rude. The company is defining the requirements for the application themselves - so they have no reason to reflect scientific uncertainty or whatever you’re getting at in their ad.
If a candidate is smart, I’m willing to accept less experience. If a candidate is less smart, I want them to have more experience. There is uncertainty in the minimum experience I’m willing to accept.
While there are certainly cases where this annoys me (as another poster pointed out “up to 60% or more!”), this is not one of them as it could have an explanation.
The standard way to express that is to have the minimum reqs be 5 and the preferred reqs be 10.
I’ve seen it enough both ways to disagree with one being the standard.
For the scenerio you described, the minimum posted experience should be the bottom of the range. The top of the range could be used internally.
So you accept that there can be a minimum range, but they should just hide it.
Then provide the fucking standard error.
They are. It’s right there in the range 5-10.
No they aren’t, they’re obfuscating a bullshit arbitrary value and you’re buying it, as if it’s a goddamn statistic. That’s the point.
I’m sorry you’re struggling so much with the English language. No need to get angry with me about it.
I mean, you’re the one who doesn’t accept minimum as having a defined, discrete value.
Seems like a linear algebra question. Are they trying to test you on the optimal region?
That means you put it outside of the 70% who have to match.
It also infuriates me if the use ‘improving the optimum’ or claim something is optimal without the proof, for example ‘this is the optimal configuration of a production system’ after a comparison of 2–3 different variants.
You’d be surprised what kind of applicants you get when you don’t add that as a requirement.
OP isn’t saying not to add the requirement. They’re saying it should read “minimum 5 years”, not “minimum 5 to 10 years” which makes no sense.
Ahh. Got it. My mistake.
But - I wouldn’t be surprised actually. What I am surprised with is what kind of applicants I get even with requirements like that (although more precise) in the job ad.
