The mismatch between what a potential employer _wants_ and what they actually _need_ is thoroughly discussed in [Why Good People Can't Get Jobs](http://www.amazon.com/Why-Good-People-Cant-Jobs/dp/161363014X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1442500536&sr=1-1&keywords=why+good+people+can%27t+get+jobs) by Peter Cappelli.  It's a short read; you can do it in an evening.  The book stems from an article he wrote in the NYT entitled [If There’s a Skills Gap, Blame It on the Employer](http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/07/09/does-a-skills-gap-contribute-to-unemployment/if-theres-a-skills-gap-blame-it-on-the-employer).  The short version is that potential employers have the apparent luxury of looking for "unicorns," or those individuals who are perfectly matched to a given (often unrealistic) job description, but don't exist.  This is often reflected in just about every job ad you see: an exhaustive list of requirements and attributes that make little sense and overall have no bearing to the said opening.  What's depressing is the sense of power and arrogance attached to these things.  A typical job ad is characterized by poor grammar, incoherency, spelling errors, irrelevancy, and even hostility.  So, they know perfectly well what they're doing in listing the extra requirements that you mentioned.  The flood of applicants comes in, they filter them by computer (also discussed in the book), and you're never even considered by an actual human being.  The author of the book makes an argument as to how this and other factors is sloppy at best and damaging at worst.