Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The author mentions that 90% of resumes are probably not qualified for a position and suggests that many of those rejections are be due to a lack of relevant experience.

This sounds like a horrible idea. There's a well-established history of inexperienced people doing amazing things that their more experienced counterparts couldn't do. This often includes founders (also true in other disciplines like the arts and science)

Obviously this is a much more nuanced topic (personally, for most roles, I would not consider random resumes on general principle because I don't think it's a great way to make an impression) but if you're going to have hard rules to weed out resumes, I would not recommend using experience.

It's a bit pedantic because this is not the article's main point, but it stood out for me and I think discouraging inexperienced people from doing anything is generally a bad idea.



(OP Here)

I think it is important to note that there is a big difference between weeding out resumes due to a heuristic like experience, and weeding out candidates based on experience.

Take the oft-quoted Tristan Walker/Foursquare example. If Tristan had simply sent his resume to "jobs@foursquare.com", It's likely that Dennis and Naveen would have hardly looked past the first lines of his resume. However, because Tristan worked his ass off to reach out directly, he was given a chance to do amazing things despite his inexperience.

I entirely agree that inexperienced people shouldn't be discouraged from trying to punch above their weight. I just believe that the bar for them to gain entry is a bit higher than submitting a resume.




Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: