We would not have put much detail in a job description for security reasons, and I don't think it was needed anyway. We weren't hiring for some very specific role, we just felt we needed say an engineer or a technician for general lab work etc. I really had no clue what I was to be working on when I was hired beyond some vague handwaving.
For a technician opening, we'd usually hire someone with a BS Chemistry degree and some knowledge about how to function in a chemistry lab. That was it. A PhD opening would entail a more involved process in the interview day, a lot rested on the seminar they would present about their previous work. I wouldn't go into details about the job though.
I'm sure it's quite different in other industries. In ours, it was pretty well expected a person's career would vary a lot over 30+ years, I probably worked on 10-15 major areas over that time.
Yeah, if you're looking for mostly entry-level stuff, and ability to operate lab equipment, it's a little different. The further along you are in your career, IMHO, the more specialized things become.
That job I referenced was still only my second job out of college, so I was quite green behind the ears, as it were. However, that was also a company that tended to hire young [i.e. cheap] people. Ultimately it was a job where I gained experience, but eventually felt I'd outgrown them.
The next job (5 years later), however, I can also say that I prepared for the interview. I had familiarity with the company from my previous job, but in advance of the interview I'd read all their tech literature online, had a grasp of what they were doing, etc. And because of the 5 years of experience I had at said previous, I could articulate how my experience aligned exactly with the role I was interviewing for.
IMHO if you walk into an interview unprepared, it's not going to look great.
Agree.
It's also out of touch with reality. The truth is, when you're job searching, you better be blanketly applying to things, because your odds of a callback on any one thing are very slim. You need to apply to dozens, even hundreds of jobs, and most job-seekers who just go looking for what they "want" and not what opens up for them are going to be in a pickle. When you have some experience and more leverage, you can probably be choosier. But this is a pretty crap way to look at candidates in any kind of entry-level or lower-level. Or heck, even higher levels, for people who have been laid off, have a mortgage and a family to feed, and need work. Better believe they're "blanketly applying to things." That's a silly knock on a potential candidate.
Still disagree on "blanketly applying to things",
especially for higher-level work. I think it's more important to absolutely target the RIGHT job(s) and put more time into landing them than to just spew resumes out at anything remotely in your industry. Because the people on the other side will be able to spot the 100 reasons you're not aligned with their job just looking over the resume. That doesn't mean that sometimes you DON'T send out resumes to those "long shot" jobs, don't put a ton of time into them, and then only do your research when you get a nibble. But I think for the ones that you are a REALLY ideal candidate, you want to do something that helps stand out. I.e. a cover letter that looks like it's tailored to the EXACT position you're applying for and isn't 'generic' is going to help. You want to get the idea across that you're not looking for A job, you're looking for THAT specific job.
When I was laid off in 2002, what I found was that I had plenty of TIME available to do this stuff. In fact, I'd usually spend a couple hours every morning (or every afternoon) doing the job application stuff, and a bunch of the rest of the day riding my motorcycle around. There are only so many jobs worth applying to, and when you're out of work, a lack of time REALLY shouldn't be an excuse for not putting in the required effort to be better than the pack.
