You Need a Job to Get Experience, But You Need Experience to Get a Job — Who’s to Blame?

Freshers often fail to get a job. Why? Because—ever heard of the term?—if you need a job, you need experience, and you can't get experience without getting a job. This is called the experience paradox, which causes many freshers to fail.
The fact is, this paradox has become so common that 35% of entry-level job postings require 1–3 years of experience, creating a situation where freshers are expected to have prior experience for entry-level roles. Even 73% of Gen Z job seekers admit to embellishing their résumés, particularly in areas like work experience and job titles. This creates pressure to meet unrealistic experience requirements for entry-level positions.
And it doesn’t stop there.
79% of job seekers report experiencing some level of anxiety during their job search, with 20% experiencing extreme anxiety. Recruiters often fail to find truly skilled people for their teams. This demand for experience in entry-level roles creates significant stress, which can lead to severe anxiety or even depression.
In fact, in the tech industry, entry-level hiring has declined by over 50% from pre-pandemic levels. Companies increasingly favor experienced professionals who can deliver immediate results—often at the expense of graduates. Many freshers have encountered this paradox at the beginning of their career journeys. Most of them are skilled, but due to a lack of experience, HR often overlooks them. It’s both shameful and ironic that HR departments continue this practice.
Some entry-level jobs and even internships prioritize experienced candidates.
But why do so many HR teams and recruiters still cling to this expectation? Is it justified—or just lazy filtering?
Let’s unpack this paradox and ask: Are we being fair to the future of our work force?

Why This Happens
Many recruiters—including those at major companies—cite the fast-paced environment as a reason to spare the time and cost involved in training freshers. Hiring someone with experience feels safer because they require less hand-holding, can start contributing faster, and are less likely to make rookie mistakes.
There is also a lack of structured mentorship systems. Many workplaces don’t have proper onboarding or training programs. Hiring someone who already knows the ropes helps teams avoid spending resources on basic training, workflow interpretation, and temporary productivity dips.
Automated hiring filters make things worse.
Most companies use résumé scanning software. Applicant Tracking Systems (ATS) often filter for candidates with 2+ years of experience and certain job titles or skills. This automatically screens out freshers—even if they are smart and capable. HR may not even see their applications.
Most employers want a "perfect package": someone young, energetic, and already experienced—but without the price tag of a senior. It’s unfair, but it’s the reality.
Market saturation also plays a role.
With hundreds of applications for every job, employers can afford to be picky. They default to experienced candidates simply to make shortlisting easier.
In fact, many managers focus on what you have done—not what you can do. They forget that while skills can be taught, drive and passion cannot. In short, they want efficiency, not effort.
This makes it brutally hard for freshers and also hurts innovation and growth—because companies miss out on fresh perspectives.
HR needs to remember: every skilled professional was once a fresher.
What if someone had rejected them for lacking experience too?
 
The article articulates a pressing and all-too-familiar issue in today’s job market: the experience paradox. It's both logical and disturbing that entry-level positions increasingly demand experience that freshers, by definition, do not yet have. This paradox not only places unrealistic expectations on job seekers but also exposes deep flaws in hiring processes and organizational priorities.


First, it is crucial to understand why this paradox exists. Many recruiters argue that hiring experienced professionals saves time and reduces training costs. In fast-paced industries, companies want immediate returns. While this logic may be practical from a business standpoint, it is short-sighted. It overlooks the long-term value of investing in fresh talent who bring energy, curiosity, adaptability, and a willingness to learn. Ironically, those very traits are often what companies say they value most.


The reliance on Applicant Tracking Systems (ATS) compounds the problem. These software tools are programmed to scan resumes for keywords, including specific years of experience, leading to automatic disqualification of otherwise capable and promising freshers. The irony is that automation, meant to streamline hiring, ends up perpetuating bias and rigidity.


Moreover, expecting candidates to have experience for internships and entry-level jobs defeats their foundational purpose. These roles should be about nurturing new professionals, not gatekeeping them. When internships require prior experience, we are sending a clear message: only the already privileged or connected need apply. This exacerbates inequality, especially for students from less prestigious institutions or underprivileged backgrounds.


The psychological impact is also alarming. With nearly 80% of job seekers experiencing anxiety and 20% experiencing extreme anxiety, we are witnessing not just a hiring problem but a mental health crisis. The pressure to embellish resumes, while unethical, stems from desperation rather than deceitfulness. When honesty gets you ignored and embellishment gets you shortlisted, the system itself incentivizes dishonesty.


However, it is not all bleak. There are solutions—if organizations are willing to rethink their approach. Employers must build robust training and mentorship programs. Rather than filtering out freshers, they can focus on aptitude, attitude, and learning potential. Structured onboarding, reskilling initiatives, and soft-skill development can bridge the gap between academics and industry needs. Moreover, hiring managers should evaluate applicants on what they can do and how they think, not just what they have done.


Finally, we must ask the critical question posed by the article: Are we being fair to the future workforce? If we continue to reject freshers, we are not just denying individuals opportunities—we are sabotaging the growth and innovation that comes from new perspectives. Every expert was once a beginner. It’s time HR policies reflect that truth with empathy and foresight.
 
Back
Top