If you're going to do something questionably legal, turn it into proper research, with multiple data points and a control, and publish the results. It doesn't have to be a formal paper. Something like a blog will do. You might also want to look into studying other factors - racism, sexism.

One guy did a study on this [0], but they got their methodology wrong [1]. Nobody actually criticized them on sending thousands of fake resumes to companies. People said they should have sent more.

[0] https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2019/03/07/race-more-...

[1] https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2019/03/11/centgps-ra...

This was a very different scenario though. The intent was a legitimate research. I feel like OP is more looking for a justification for something he knows is wrong.

Even if it was conducted purely for research, the findings wouldn't really be interesting. Results for whether a company gives you a callback if you add experience they are explicitly seeking is hardly going to be surprising.

We don't want to act on our feelings without corroborating evidence.

I'd find the results interesting, regardless of how slipshod the methodology was. Nonetheless, I'd hope you're wondering this in the name of research and not in the hopes of landing that job through your deception.

I believe you're overlooking the elephant in the room: 15 years' experience in anything. Banks don't want to hire people with that much experience because they're ageist. Most feel (rightly or wrongly) that fresh college graduates will tolerate miserable hours and working conditions and turn out comparable code.

Perhaps a 2-dimensional analysis where you impersonate people with 3 years' experience (in credit unions or in big banks) and a graduation date immediately prior. I believe you'll soon discover it's not about where the experience is, but how much the experience is.

Now THAT would be a study worth reading.

OP said they did meet the experience the company was explicitly seeking. Since there's no callbacks it has to be something else.

" the company won't hire unless you have experience in a big bank"

Seems like this is the requirement the candidate doesn't meet - although its unstated.

If the issue was sex, race or age it would me a legitimate "study" but in this case, it'd be just lying about experience to get the job.

Its a very unethical approach. And if you're caught, it'll destroy people's trust in you (and thats something that's hard to gain back).

If you really want a job there, I'd say try to get in touch with the hiring manager or someone who's on the team. Usually it's HR acting as a gatekeeper without understanding the nuances of what makes a good candidate good.

Reach out to folks either through your personal network if you have a connection, or via LinkedIn.

Well if you send the exact same resume with a few different thing, you're going to be caught and get bad rep. If you change lots of things (formatting of the resume, skills, education, description for positions etc.) then you are not testing anything because you change to manny variables.

And what's the point of it. Say you're right and they consider working at a big bank like necessary experience. That's not illegal or anything. Knowing that will not give you an edge, it's not something you can change.

So overall, you will probably learn nothing or get your real profile banned, potentially for multiple companies if going through a recruiter or in a small industry. And even if you manage to pull it off, and you're right, that doesn't give you anything. so just don't.

It's fraud.

Is it fraud to just test their hypothesis with no intention of following through with it?

It literally is not. They'll just terminate you and thats it.