Curious if anyone has had success getting a job, where you didn’t meet a particular requirement (e.g. 4-5 years experience in capital markets, when you have only 2). If you applied for jobs in such situations and didn’t get it, do you believe it hurts your chances if you apply with the same firm in the future?
Depends on the labour market. When there’s more deman than supply, you have a better chance. In this marlket, there are people with 10 years of experience applying for jobs that require only 5.
I don’t think you should waste your time applying unless you have some huge advantage (like knowing the hiring manager)
As former trader said, not only do you have a massive pool of experienced people that can fit the job, there is another massive group of people willing to trade down for a lesser job.
I wouldn’t bother applying to something that requires 4-5 yrs and you only got 2.
Job descriptions quickly become laundry lists for dream candidates that most likely don’t exist or who would not accept what the hirer wants to pay for that perfect combo of talents. You are never certain what points have flexibility and what points don’t, and you definitely do miss 100% of the shots you don’t take.
If you have most of the qualifications, and what’s missing isn’t an obvious problem, go for it.
That said, years of experience are one of the harder things to substitute.
I agree with Bchadwick, if the points you are missing arent going to seriously impact your ability to do the job, it is still worth applying. When I have been on the other side it is true that the requirements can be more of a dream list, than what you actually expect to hire. Although, you would hope companies would differentiate between required and preferred…Even on experience, there can be some room (e.g. if they put 10 years, they will take 8 if solid, but almost never 6).