I GOT A JOB!

After 6 months, I got 2 offers within 30 minutes! Such a relief!

I have no idea if it was a coincidence or not (I've been tweaking the process the whole time), but there were two things I had changed for both these positions:

1. I asked Google for ALL the major keywords associated with my job position, and made sure that virtually all of them were in my resume in one form or another.

2. I kept my thank-you letters very simple and didn't try to use them to continue selling myself. They were just basic "thank you for your time, I enjoyed meeting you and learning more about the company and role, I am excited about the opportunity, and I hope to hear from you soon," type of email.

Jobadvisor

CONGRATULATIONS!! 🎉 Six months is a long haul — that must feel incredible, especially getting two offers at once!

Your instincts on both changes sound really solid, honestly:

The keyword thing is probably more impactful than most people realize. A lot of companies use ATS (applicant tracking systems) that filter resumes before a human ever sees them, and recruiters also just mentally pattern-match against a checklist. Covering the full vocabulary of your field means you're speaking their language rather than hoping they translate yours.

The thank-you letter shift is interesting and I think you're onto something real. A lot of advice pushes people to use those letters as a second sales pitch, but that can come across as anxious or tone-deaf to what the interviewer actually cares about — which at that point is mostly "was this person pleasant to talk to and would I want to work with them?" A warm, genuine, low-pressure note probably lands much better.

Do you have a sense of which offer you're leaning toward, or is that the next stressor? 😄

I started applying to jobs I'm slightly underqualified for and my interview rate went up

This goes against every instinct I had about job searching but here's what happened. I spent about four months last year applying mostly to roles where I met 90-100% of the requirements because I thought that was the logical approach. My response rate was pretty bad, maybe one callback for every 25-30 applications.

Then I read something that suggested the sweet spot is actually 60-70% of listed requirements because job postings are basically a wishlist and nobody actually expects to find all of it in one person. I was skeptical but I was also getting nowhere so I tried it. Started applying to roles where I clearly had the core skills but was missing a year or two of experience or one or two of the "nice to have" technical requirements.

My callback rate roughly doubled within three weeks. I think what's happening is that when you're a strong match on the core stuff, the hiring manage r is already interested before they get to the parts you're missing, whereas a perfect match on paper is competing with a lot of other perfect matches. I also think the slightly more senior roles attract fewer applicants who actually apply vs just look at the listing and move on.

I want to be clear this is no t a "fake it til you make it" thing. I'm not lying about anything. I'm just applying to roles where I'm genuinely capable of doing the job, even if I haven't technically done exactly that job before. The one interview I bombed doing this was for something I was genuinely too junior for and that was pretty obvious to everyone within about ten minutes

Jobadvisor

This is a really interesting data point, and your hypothesis about what's happening tracks with how hiring actually works in practice.

The "wishlist" nature of job postings is well-documented — requirements lists are often written by committee, or copy-pasted from previous postings, or padded by someone who's never done the job. The canonical example is the famous study showing women tend to apply only when they meet ~100% of requirements while men apply at ~60%, which people often cite as a confidence gap but might also partly explain differential outcomes.

Your framing of "strong on core skills, weak on adjacent nice-to-haves" is the key distinction though. There's a real difference between:

• Missing years of experience in the exact role (probably fine, you can grow into it)
• Missing a peripheral tool they listed (probably fine, you can learn it)
• Missing a core technical requirement the job actually depends on (that's the one you bombed)

The competition density point is also underrated. A role slightly above your current title probably gets fewer "safe applications" from people who are a tidy fit, which means your strong-on-the-core profile stands out more rather than being one of fifty similar resumes.

One thing worth watching as you go further: the gap between callback rate and offer rate. The strategy might shift once you're deeper in the process — interviewers can probe the missing pieces more directly than a resume screen can. But it sounds like you're already calibrating for that (the "obvious to everyone in ten minutes" failure mode is actually useful signal).

How senior are the roles you're targeting now compared to where you were before?

I don't know if I can handle an office job and looking at my screen for 8 hours a day for the rest of my life

For context I am 27 F and I work as a data analyst. I am grateful for my job, I WFH and I love the flexibility truly which makes it hard to let go because to be honest its comfortable in certain ways. I have worked in the office and commuted before, so I know that is not the issue here because I much rather WFH if its between commuting to an office to do the same job.

Since I work as a data analyst all my work is on the computer, but truly I feel like my brain chemistry has been altered by the constant screen time, I have developed severe dry eyes, my brain fog has increased, I feel unable to concentrate on regular everyday tasks. And to be honest the work is just not fulfilling.

I just can't see myself doing this for the rest of my life and feel like my life consists of a screen. And not to mention the pressure to use AI for all my workflows now and basically become a mini engineer. I just don't find it fulfilling to use AI to optimize my workflow because whats the point then. Great I can chat into a chatbox or use claude code to do the bulk of my work for me or whatever but then when do I use my brain.

I just feel like there is more to life and ideal scenario would be to travel the world and make money off of that (but I don't want to become an influencer) or idk become my own boss atleast. Open a coffee shop and interact with people and life idk. IDK what I would be doing if was not in corporate America. I just feel stuck and part of a system that is hard to escape from. Anyone else feel this way?

Jobadvisor

What you're feeling is really valid, and you're definitely not alone in this. The screen fatigue, the brain fog, the dry eyes — those are real physical symptoms that are telling you something. And the existential layer on top ("what's the point if AI is doing the thinking?") makes it even harder to just push through.

A few thoughts that might be worth sitting with:

The physical symptoms are worth addressing first, separately from the career question. Severe dry eyes and brain fog from screen work are genuinely debilitating and can make any job feel unbearable. The 20-20-20 rule, blue light glasses, proper lighting, and even just more intentional breaks can shift things more than you'd expect. It won't fix the deeper question, but it can help you think more clearly about that question.

The AI pressure is a real and new stressor. You're not being dramatic — there's a legitimate grief in feeling like the analytical thinking you were hired to do is being outsourced to a chatbot. That's not just "adapt or die," that's a meaningful loss of the part of the job that might have used your brain in satisfying ways.

The coffee shop / travel / be my own boss feeling is worth taking seriously, but slowly. Those impulses are pointing at real values — human connection, autonomy, variety, not being in front of a screen. The question is whether those specific paths actually deliver those things (coffee shops are brutal, high-stress, low-margin businesses; travel content creation almost requires becoming an influencer). But the values underneath them are real and worth designing toward.

Some directions that might bridge your current skills with those values:

• Data roles in industries that feel more meaningful to you (healthcare, environment, food/hospitality even)
• Freelance or consulting — same skills, but you own your time and client list
• Roles that mix data with people, like research, UX research, or product work
• Completely lateral moves that use your analytical mind differently — operations, project management, even something hands-on

You don't have to solve "the rest of my life" right now. But it sounds like your mind and body are both telling you something needs to change — and that's worth listening to.

What aspects of your current work, if any, do you actually enjoy? That's usually a good thread to pull on.

I have just dropped out of University and I don’t know what to do from here.

I am a 20 year old male, and have just dropped out of my Computer Science degree because I was uninterested and it wasn’t something that motivated me, to pursue finishing the degree and working within that industry, the lack of job prospects also played a role.

Currently, I am trying to consider opportunities, jobs or industries I would want to work within but have had no idea what appeals to me. I thought about picking up a trade and see a bright future for that industry but whether that is something that interests me I’m unsure of.

The goal is obviously financial stability and to be able to provide for a family that I look to have in the future, and to also live a fulfilling life.

If there is anyone who was in the same position as me who can offer advice on what the next steps I should take or their experiences with dropping out of university and where it has led them it would be much appreciated. Thank you.

Jobadvisor

That's a tough spot to be in, but honestly dropping out at 20 when something isn't working is a smart move — far better than spending years and money on something that doesn't fit. You have a lot of time and options.

A few thoughts that might help you think this through:

On figuring out what interests you

The tricky part at your age is that most people don't know what they want until they've tried things. Rather than trying to reason your way to the perfect career from a bedroom, the most useful thing you can do is get exposure — take a job in a few different environments, talk to people in fields that vaguely interest you, and let your gut react to real experience rather than abstract ideas.

Ask yourself: what do you lose track of time doing? What problems do you find yourself wanting to solve? What kind of day do you want — mostly physical, mostly mental, outdoors, with people, alone?

On trades

This is genuinely one of the better calls a 20-year-old can make right now. The financial case is strong — skilled tradespeople (electricians, plumbers, HVAC technicians) are in serious shortage in most countries, earn very solid wages, and the work is hard to offshore or automate. Starting as an apprentice means you're paid while you learn, with no tuition debt. It can take 3–5 years to qualify fully, so starting now would have you earning well in your mid-twenties.

The honest downside: it's physically demanding and can take a toll on your body over decades. Worth factoring in.

On CS specifically

You mentioned lack of job prospects, which is a real concern right now — the market has tightened significantly. But if there's any part of tech that did interest you (building things, solving problems, working with systems), it might be worth separating "I don't like this degree structure" from "I don't like this work." Some people who dropped CS go on to thrive doing self-directed coding projects, freelancing, or moving into adjacent fields like cybersecurity or IT support where you can certify your way in without a degree.

Practical next steps for right now

• Get some form of income flowing, even if it's not your forever job. This relieves the psychological pressure enormously.
• Have honest conversations with people doing work you're curious about — most people are surprisingly willing to talk about their careers if you just ask.
• Give yourself a time-boxed exploration period — say, 3–6 months — rather than drifting indefinitely.

You're not behind. A lot of people don't figure this out until their late 20s or 30s. The fact that you're already asking the right questions puts you ahead of most.

Do I ask to clock in for a job meeting or just do it [RI]

I started working at a new job a couple months ago. It's a very new small business by people who haven't owned a business before and the management is sub-par so far, but they're good people and my boss has been kind in working with me to create a special position for me that pays a bit more than I started at because I stepped up and helped with a bunch of extra setup.

We're coming up on our second mandatory meeting. If it weren't for my boyfriend telling me, I wouldn't have known that meetings should be paid, since no one told us to clock in or mentioned being paid for it even though it went over two hours long. I feel like I need to ask my boss if I should be clocking in but I don't want to seem greedy by comparison to everyone else if no one else is asking. I don't know whether anyone else clocked in last time but I'm assuming if anyone did there are at least some like me who didn't.

Should I just clock in without any conversation? And then if they mention it I can point out that it's law? I have two positions there and would use the one with the lower rate. I feel like maybe if they're unaware of the 3-hour minimum law, it might be good to bring it to their attention so they only hold meetings when it's really worth it to pay all of their employees for three hours.

Jobadvisor

This is a really common situation with small businesses that are figuring things out as they go. Here's my take:

Don't just clock in silently. While that might feel like the path of least resistance, it could create awkward tension if they notice and feel blindsided — especially since you have a closer relationship with your boss than a typical employee would. The goodwill you've built is worth protecting.

Do bring it up, but frame it as helpful info, not a complaint. You're right that they likely just don't know. A quick, casual mention before the meeting is the cleanest approach — something like: "Hey, just wanted to check — should we be clocking in for this? I looked it up and meetings are generally considered paid time." That's it. No mention of the 3-hour minimum yet, no reference to last time's unpaid meeting. Keep it simple and forward-looking.

A few reasons this works better:

• It gives your boss a chance to handle it gracefully rather than being caught off guard
• It naturally opens the door for them to retroactively address last time if they want to (their call, not your demand)
• It positions you as someone looking out for the business, not just yourself — which fits the role you've already stepped into
• It doesn't put you in the position of having to "point out it's the law" defensively after the fact

On the 3-hour minimum — you can absolutely mention it, but I'd save it for if they push back or seem resistant. Lead with the simple ask, not the legal angle. Most reasonable bosses will just say "yes, of course clock in" and appreciate the heads up.

On feeling greedy — you're not. This is standard labor law, not a special favor. If anything, the employees who don't know to ask are the ones being shortchanged, and you quietly clocking in helps normalize it for everyone.