Can I attend 3 years experience Java interview with 2.7 years experience? Will the companies strictly follow experience criteria?

  • 12
    Of course. Requirements in job posts are usually wishlists, not hard limits. Commented Mar 10, 2014 at 12:52
  • 1
    Of couse not. Requirements in job posts are usually hard limits, not wishlists.
    – CMW
    Commented Mar 10, 2014 at 12:59
  • 1
    Hi user, welcome to The Workplace. Unfortunately we can't tell you whether you can attend said interview as it depends solely on what that company's policies are regarding these requirements. Answers to this question will thus be mainly opinion based and may well contradict each other. Compare my comment to Juha's for example. As it stands this question is a rather bad fit for this site. Maybe taking a look at help center will help you improve it.
    – CMW
    Commented Mar 10, 2014 at 13:04
  • 3
    This is the same question.
    – enderland
    Commented Mar 10, 2014 at 13:31

4 Answers 4


of course. First of all, 0.3 years is not much difference. If it would be 2 years, I'd still recommend. Here's why:

Often, it's not an exact match they're looking for-it's the right skill set

more on this: http://lifehacker.com/5908557/why-you-should-still-apply-to-a-job-even-if-you-dont-meet-the-exact-job-requirements

  • This is the best answer so far because it is more than just voicing an opinion.
    – CMW
    Commented Mar 10, 2014 at 13:11
  • 1
    +1 to this. I got a job that was looking for 3-5 years experience when I only had 2.5 at the time. If you can prove that you are sufficiently proficient with the skills the company wants for the job they are often willing to over look things like years of experience. Commented Mar 10, 2014 at 13:34

Well you can clearly still apply for interview. Whether or not the company considers 3 years to be a strict limit or not depends on the company. I'd be very surprised if it was that strict. HR departments quickly learn that if they have hard and fast rules in place for this, they end up tossing potentially excellent candidates.


When applying for jobs, I tend to follow the "80% match" rule. As in, I only apply if I meet at least 80% of the criteria listed in the job posting. It can be hard to tell which of the long list of requirements (especially in tech) are "must-haves" vs. "nice-to-haves", and I almost never see a job listing for which I'm a 100% perfect match (unless it's one of those overly generic "developer, software (10 ea.)" job listings, which I wouldn't apply for anyway because they provide absolutely no information about the job itself).

Anyway, my point is, if being slightly under the experience requirement is the only requirement you don't exactly meet, I would definitely apply.


When a company offers to take the time to interview you, you can figure that they've already taken the time to compare your resume or job application to the requirements for the job. That typically included required education and years of experience. If they haven't, that's not your problem.

So if they don't have any concerns about your years of experience - why should you?

In all honesty, for this specific question 2.7 vs. 3 years just isn't that big a difference. Mileage will always vary, but there really is no magical number that creates a level between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" - the difference is learning from experience and depth of understanding.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .