Job Descriptions Aren’t Written to Find the Best Candidate. They’re Written to Justify Rejecting You

You spend hours crafting the perfect resume. You customize your cover letter. You check every box on the job requirements list. And then? Radio silence. Or worse, an automated rejection email within minutes of clicking submit.

Here’s what nobody wants to admit: those job descriptions you’re meticulously trying to match weren’t written to find the perfect candidate. They were written to create the perfect excuse to reject you.

The system isn’t broken. It’s working exactly as designed. Just not for you.

The Numbers Don’t Lie: Job Descriptions Have Become Rejection Machines

Let’s start with a reality check. Our research analyzing over 2,000 “entry-level” job postings found that 35% require years of prior work experience, with some demanding up to 5 years. In tech, the situation is even worse, with over 60% of entry-level positions requiring 3+ years of experience.

This isn’t incompetence. It’s strategy.

The “5 years experience in a 3-year-old technology” paradox isn’t a joke. It’s a feature, not a bug. When companies post requirements that are literally impossible to meet, they’re not being foolish. They’re building a legal shield.

Here’s how it works in practice:

• 98% of Fortune 500 companies use Applicant Tracking Systems (ATS) to filter resumes
• Up to 75% of resumes are rejected by these systems before human eyes ever see them
• 62% of hiring managers admit their AI tools reject qualified candidates who don’t fit conventional patterns
• Even when resumes pass the bots, hiring managers spend an average of just 6 seconds reviewing them

The hiring process has transformed into an elaborate rejection machine, with job descriptions serving as the programming.

Interview Guys Take: When a job description lists 15 “required” qualifications and 20 “preferred” skills, they’re not describing their ideal candidate. They’re documenting reasons to reject literally anyone who applies. It’s defensive hiring masquerading as high standards.

The Legal Protection Racket Behind Impossible Requirements

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: comprehensive job descriptions with extensive requirements protect companies from discrimination lawsuits far more than they help identify great candidates.

Under federal employment discrimination laws, companies must demonstrate that their hiring criteria are “job-related and consistent with business necessity.” The easiest way to do this? Create a massive list of requirements that theoretically apply to the role, then claim any rejected candidate simply didn’t meet the documented standards.

This creates a legal paradox:

The more specific and numerous the requirements, the easier it is to justify rejecting anyone. A candidate might be brilliant, experienced, and perfectly capable of excelling in the role. But if they’re missing even one item from a 30-point checklist? The company has documented justification for the rejection.

The system provides cover for arbitrary decisions while appearing objective and merit-based.

Consider this: when job descriptions are more like wish lists than requirements, as multiple hiring experts have confirmed, why do companies continue to present them as mandatory qualifications? Because the perception of objectivity matters more than actual objectivity.

Interview Guys Take: Notice how job descriptions rarely say “we’d love someone who has experience with X” and instead say “must have 5+ years experience with X.” That absolutist language isn’t accidental. It’s legal armor. When they reject you, they can point to that “must have” and claim it was an objective standard, not a subjective decision.

The Entry-Level Scam: Creating Impossible Barriers by Design

The entry-level job market exposes this system’s true purpose most clearly. If “entry-level” theoretically means jobs for people entering a field, why do so many require years of experience?

The answer is simple: companies want experienced workers at entry-level salaries.

Research from Zippia found that jobs labeled “entry-level” pay approximately 20% less than identical roles without that designation, even when they require the same experience. The “entry-level” label isn’t about experience requirements. It’s about pay justification.

Here’s the systematic breakdown:

Technology sector: 60%+ of “entry-level” positions require 3+ years of relevant experience, making it the most difficult industry to break into directly.

Customer service roles: Despite being perceived as accessible, 84% of customer service “entry-level” jobs in some markets require prior experience, with an average requirement of 1.95 years.

Geographic discrimination: Major cities consistently inflate experience requirements beyond smaller markets. Cities like Swansea (59.8%), Nottingham (55.7%), and Glasgow (54.3%) lead with the highest percentages of experience-required “entry-level” positions.

The pattern is clear: job descriptions create intentional barriers that allow companies to reject most applicants while claiming they simply couldn’t find qualified candidates.

Interview Guys Take: When companies complain about talent shortages while simultaneously requiring 5 years of experience for entry-level positions, they’re not confused. They know exactly what they’re doing. They want the flexibility to pick and choose from a limited pool of overqualified candidates desperate enough to accept underpaying roles.

The ATS Gauntlet: Where Qualified Candidates Go to Die

Modern hiring technology has amplified the rejection-by-design system exponentially. Applicant Tracking Systems were supposedly created to streamline hiring and reduce bias. In practice, they’ve become sophisticated rejection machines.

Consider these realities from our comprehensive analysis of the 2025 job market:

The screening process is designed to eliminate, not evaluate:

• Resumes that don’t match exact keywords are automatically rejected
• Non-traditional career paths get filtered out regardless of actual qualifications
• Creative professionals face an impossible choice: showcase design skills or pass ATS screening, but rarely both
• Career gaps, even for legitimate reasons, trigger automatic flags

The AI doesn’t understand context, only compliance:

One graphic designer spent 9 months job hunting, discovering that the resume that passed ATS screening was “absolutely hideous” while their beautifully designed resume showcasing actual skills got rejected instantly. The system rewards gaming it, not genuine qualification.

A Reddit user shared applying to 1,782 jobs over 14 months, facing over 1,400 rejections and 200+ instances of complete ghosting before finally getting one offer. Another applicant on TikTok revealed 1,400 applications over 8 months with no job offers.

These aren’t outliers. They’re what the system produces when job descriptions are designed as rejection criteria rather than role descriptions.

Interview Guys Take: The “requirements” in job descriptions serve a different purpose for ATS than for humans. For ATS, they’re pass/fail checkboxes. Miss one keyword? Rejected. Format your resume creatively? Rejected. Have experience that doesn’t perfectly match their phrasing? Rejected. The irony is that the candidates who best understand how to game these systems are often the least qualified for the actual work.

What Job Descriptions Actually Accomplish (Hint: It’s Not Finding Great Candidates)

So if job descriptions aren’t primarily designed to identify qualified candidates, what are they really accomplishing?

Maximum flexibility with minimum accountability:

When every job requires 10-20 “mandatory” qualifications, companies can reject anyone for any reason while pointing to some unmet requirement. It provides cover for decisions made on entirely different grounds like culture fit (often code for similarity to existing employees), salary negotiation leverage, or internal candidate preference.

Legal protection from discrimination claims:

Extensive, detailed requirements create paper trails showing “objective” hiring criteria. When challenged on hiring decisions, companies can point to documented standards rather than admitting to subjective preferences or worse, discriminatory practices.

Salary suppression for qualified candidates:

By labeling experienced positions as “entry-level” or by requiring extensive qualifications for junior roles, companies can justify lower compensation even when hiring highly qualified people.

Artificial talent shortage creation:

When no one meets all the impossible requirements, companies can claim they can’t find qualified talent. This narrative justifies everything from H1-B visa requests to corporate training budget cuts to keeping positions unfilled while overworking existing staff.

According to a 2024 hiring benchmark report, 70% of hiring professionals claim we’re facing a talent shortage. Yet during the same period, millions of qualified candidates report hundreds of applications with minimal responses. The “shortage” isn’t real. It’s manufactured by impossible job requirements.

Interview Guys Take: The next time you see a job description requiring 7+ years of experience, multiple certifications, expertise in a dozen tools, and “thought leadership in the industry” for a mid-level role, remember this: they don’t expect to find that person. They expect to justify rejecting everyone who applies until they find someone desperate enough to accept whatever they’re offering.

The Skills-Based Hiring Myth: Same System, Different Packaging

Recently, there’s been increasing noise about “skills-based hiring” as the solution to credential inflation and impossible experience requirements. Don’t be fooled. It’s the same system wearing a different hat.

The data shows adoption is rising: 85% of employers reported using skills-based hiring approaches in 2025, up from 81% in 2024 and 56% in 2022. Companies are rewriting job descriptions to emphasize skills over credentials and degrees.

But here’s what’s actually happening:

Instead of requiring a bachelor’s degree and 5 years of experience, jobs now require “demonstrated expertise in 12 different competencies” and “portfolio evidence of advanced proficiency in industry-standard tools.” Same barrier, different words.

The requirements didn’t decrease. They just got repackaged. Now instead of needing a degree from a specific school, you need a portfolio demonstrating mastery of skills that typically take 5 years to develop. You’re still locked out if you’re trying to break into a field.

The cruel irony: skills-based hiring could theoretically open doors for non-traditional candidates. In practice, it often creates even more subjective rejection criteria. “Cultural fit” and “demonstrated passion” become euphemisms for rejecting candidates who don’t match preconceived notions, while the appearance of objectivity makes these decisions harder to challenge.

What This Means for Your Job Search

Understanding that job descriptions are rejection tools rather than role descriptions should fundamentally change your approach. Stop trying to perfectly match every requirement. It’s impossible by design.

Instead, focus on these strategic approaches:

• Treat requirements as suggestions, not absolutes. If you meet 60-70% of the requirements and believe you can do the job, apply anyway. Many hiring experts confirm that job descriptions are wish lists rather than strict requirements.

• Network around the system. The most effective way to bypass rejection-by-design is to get your resume in front of actual humans who can advocate for you. Internal referrals remain the most powerful path to getting hired because they circumvent the automated rejection systems.

• Tailor strategically, not exhaustively. You don’t need to customize everything for every application. Focus on incorporating key terms from the job description to pass ATS screening, then rely on your actual qualifications to interest human reviewers.

• Recognize rejection rarely reflects your worth. When 98% of applications fail in the current market, rejection is the statistical norm, not an indicator of your qualifications. The system is designed to reject most people.

The Bottom Line: The System Is Working Against You

Job descriptions have evolved into elaborate rejection mechanisms that provide companies maximum flexibility while minimizing legal risk. The impossible requirements, extensive qualification lists, and entry-level positions requiring years of experience aren’t accidents or incompetence.

They’re features of a system designed to protect employers while transferring all the risk and frustration to candidates.

The sooner you understand this, the sooner you can stop playing their game by their rules. Stop trying to perfectly match impossible requirements. Stop blaming yourself when you get rejected despite being qualified. Stop assuming the system is designed to help you find work.

It isn’t. It’s designed to help companies avoid accountability for their hiring decisions.

Your job isn’t to somehow become the mythical perfect candidate described in these fictional job postings. Your job is to recognize them for what they are and find ways around them.

The game is rigged. But once you understand how, you can stop playing by their rules and start creating your own path to employment.

---