To refuse to interview someone who made a spelling mistake in their covering letter?

[snickersnack]

We advertised a position on our website for a graduate ? it did specify that we wanted someone with ?exceptional written, verbal and analytical communication skills?. We?ve had over 90 applications, and are just about to start the short listing process. We?ve just had a big disagreement in the office over whether it?s ok to ditch applications from people who?ve made spelling or grammatical mistakes in their letters and cvs. I mean, seriously, how hard is it to ask someone to proof-read your letter before you email it in? But apparently I?m being an elitist snob and should give them the benefit of the doubt.

surely one spelling mistake can be overlooked but anymore than one mistake i would not interveiw

You are in the right. What better way to thin out a large number of applications than to ditch the ones with spelling mistakes, especially if that's what your ad specified. I've done it many times myself - and have also told unsuccessful applicants the reason for not getting an interview.

I don't think you're being unreasonable - If I saw a CV with mistakes on it, I would discard it on the basis that a; they obviously DON'T have exceptional written skills and b; they obviously don't care enough about the application to either spell check or proof read.

Hmmm...you've got to whittle them down from 90 somehow so I would agree with you.

Different perhaps if there were only 3 applicants and one had all the right skills but made a tiny spelling mistake.

I think if you want exceptional written skills then you should expect them in an application letter.

Hmmmm,

It wouldn't have taken long to check your application over before sending it, to check for spelling or grammatical error.

And as your position is for someone with 'exceptional written, verbal and analytical communications skills' then I would say that they have failed in the the written part of things already.

Maybe I am being harsh but that is how I see it and I am in no mood for spelling or grammatical error today, lol!

My post is probably completely grammatically wrong!!!!

is your spelling perfect??

necessary gets me every time!!

If you've got to whittle the shortlist down, then eliminating those with spelling/grammar mistakes is a perfectly good way of doing so.

Just out of interest what % contained such an error? It's a bug bear of mine too (although you wouldn't know it from some of my posts on here ) I just can't believe how many "quality" graduates we have pass through our organisation, who don't seem to have basic numeracy and literacy.

Also, how important can the job be to them if they can't be bothered to proof read their application properly? If they don't read their CV properly (or don't know any better) how can you expect them to produce decent work for your customers?

The rest of the application would have to be very strong indeed, for a poorly spelled CV to make the cut for me.

I don't think a single error should be a definite no, if their application was very good in every other way - we are all human after all! But obviously you'd have to be happy with the overall communication skills they displayed in their application. A letter with perfect spelling and grammar but hard to understand would be far worse.

If you were advertising for a tree surgeon, then yes, you would probably be being a teensy bit elitist.

As you are advertising for someone with exceptional written skills, being able to spell is not really too much to ask, is it?

You have enough applications that you need to whittle them down somehow, and what better way.

Would your colleagues really be happy to interview someone who has failed at the first hurdle?

tis a no-brianer to me.

Spelling shows attention to detail, which tends to be one of the things people need in jobs. I think not spellchecking an application is very poor.

Completely agree with you. They have to go. I don't understand why no-one can spell any more, or form a proper sentence.

(am officially now old and grumpy aren't i?!)

done it myself, rejected for spelling errors. that's what spellcheck is for, it's not difficult.

I'm not sure that one spelling mistake indicates that the applicant hasn't got exceptional written communication skills. Communication is a great deal more than spelling and in a work environment most people have a spell checker. I'd be more concerned about a lack of fluency and poor vocabulary.

I always exclude those with spelling mistakes for admin roles. There really is no excuse - everyone has access to a dictionary or spellcheck, so it simply means they don't care enough to get it right.

And those who send applications franked in their existing employer's mail - how stupid can you get?!!

I think it's a good way of thinning the applications down.

I used to work for a magazine and I never answered any emails, which were written in text-speak.

One of the editors used to reject any applications, which contained the phrase 'relish the opportunity'.

One woman said that she would bite off her own arm and our arms to get the job. She didn't.

The only concern I would raise is that I know recruitment agents sometime re-write CVs, so the spelling mistake my not be the applicants mistake.

However, as a generally rule I agree it would give them a black mark and everything else about them would have to be perfect for me to consider them. I would not rule out a "perfect" candidate for one mistake there would have to be several errors but if it was a toss up between a number of candidates all with very similar CVs, I can see it as being a good test.

oops should really preview my post first

YANBU. Spellcheck exists for a reason.

Yes but starlight, do you think that spelling and grammar are skills that are no longer relevant? The world might be changing, but I still don't think it's right (now sounding like my in-laws, augh!)

proof reading is more important to do 3 times over
spellcheck is great but it does not deal with the grammar and puctuation successfully