Skills-based hiring is everywhere in 2025—81% of companies now use skills-first approaches, and 45% have dropped degree requirements for at least some roles.

But there's a problem: many candidates are skeptical. They've seen "degree optional" job postings before, and in their experience, it often means "we're going to pay you less because you don't have credentials."

Sometimes that skepticism is warranted. But if your company genuinely values skills over degrees and compensates fairly, you need to overcome this perception. Here's how.

Why Candidates Are Skeptical

Let's be honest about why this skepticism exists:

1. Some companies DO use "skills-based" as an excuse to lowball: "We'll hire you without a degree... but we'll pay you 20% less than someone with one."

2. "Degree optional" has been used as a euphemism for "entry-level pay for experienced work": Candidates have seen postings that say "no degree required" but expect 5 years of experience—and offer compensation appropriate for someone fresh out of college.

3. There's no transparency: Many job postings say "skills-based" but don't explain what that actually means for compensation, career progression, or how candidates will be evaluated.

Candidates aren't being unreasonable—they're pattern-matching based on past experiences. Your job is to break that pattern.

Address Compensation Concerns Upfront

The #1 way to overcome skepticism: be transparent about pay.

Include Salary Ranges in Job Postings

If you're genuinely paying skills-based candidates the same as degree-holding candidates with equivalent skills, say so. Include the salary range in your job posting, and make it clear that compensation is based on skills and experience, not educational credentials.

Example language:

"This role pays $75,000-$95,000 depending on skills and experience. We do not adjust compensation based on whether you have a degree—we care about what you can do, not where you learned it."

Use Specific Examples

Don't just say "skills-based." Give concrete examples of what that looks like at your company:

"Our top-performing sales rep doesn't have a college degree but consistently outperforms the team. She earns $120K base + commission—the same comp structure as everyone else on the team."

Real examples break through skepticism better than vague promises.

Explain What "Skills-Based" Actually Means

Many candidates don't fully understand what "skills-based hiring" entails. They think it's just code for "no degree required," which feels like a downgrade.

Reframe it as what it actually is: evaluating candidates on what they can do, not on credentials that may or may not predict job performance.

Script: Explaining Skills-Based Hiring

"We use skills-based hiring, which means we evaluate candidates on their ability to [specific job skill], not on whether they have a degree. You'll complete a [work sample/skills assessment/case study] that mirrors the actual work you'd do in this role. We've found this approach identifies great talent that traditional resume screening misses—and it's

fairer to candidates who learned on the job instead of in a classroom."

The key: emphasize what candidates gain (fairer evaluation, chance to demonstrate skills) rather than what they're missing (a degree).

Show Career Progression for Skills-Based Hires

One of the biggest concerns: "If I take a 'degree optional' role, will I be stuck there forever while people with degrees get promoted?"

Combat this by showing examples of career progression for employees hired through skills-based processes:

"Our VP of Engineering started as a junior developer without a degree 7 years ago. Our Director of Customer Success was promoted from a support role—also no degree. We promote based on performance and skills, not credentials."

If you can't point to examples of skills-based hires who've been promoted, that's a red flag. Either you haven't been doing skills-based hiring long enough to have promotion data, or you're not actually promoting skills-based hires. Fix that before trying to sell candidates on the approach.

Address the "Why No Degree Requirement?" Question Head-On

Candidates often wonder: "If this role doesn't require a degree, is it less important? Less prestigious? Lower-paid?"

Flip the script:

"We dropped the degree requirement because we realized some of our best performers didn't have degrees—they learned through apprenticeships, bootcamps, self-study, and on-the-job experience. We don't want to miss out on great talent just because they took a different educational path."

This reframes "no degree required" from "lower standards" to "broader talent pool."

Use Skills Assessments, Not Just Interviews

One of the best ways to sell candidates on skills-based hiring: actually evaluate their skills, not just interview them.

Candidates are skeptical of "skills-based" when the hiring process still centers on resume reviews and behavioral interviews. But when you ask them to complete a work sample, case study, or skills assessment that mirrors actual job tasks, it feels legitimate.

Example:

"Instead of asking you to talk about your project management experience, we'll give you a sample project brief and ask you to create a project plan. This gives you a chance to show what you can do, regardless of where you learned it."

This tangibly demonstrates that you care about skills, not credentials.

FAQ Responses for Common Objections

Here are scripts for addressing common candidate concerns:

"Does 'no degree required' mean I'll be paid less?"

"No. Compensation is based on your skills and the value you bring to the role, not on whether you have a degree. Our salary range for this position is [range], and where you fall in that range depends on your experience and skills assessment performance—not your educational background."

"Will I be able to advance in my career without a degree?"

"Yes. We promote based on performance, not credentials. [Share specific examples of skills-based hires who've been promoted]. Your career progression will be determined by your impact and growth, not by what's on your resume."

"Why should I trust that you actually mean 'skills-based' and not just using it as an excuse to pay less?"

"That's a fair question—some companies do use it that way. Here's how you can verify we're different: [1] We publish salary ranges in our job postings [2] We require all candidates to complete the same skills assessment, regardless of background [3] We can introduce you to current employees who were hired through our skills-based process so you can ask them directly about their experience."

The Bottom Line

Skills-based hiring is a better, fairer way to evaluate talent—but only if companies implement it authentically. If you're using "skills-based" as code for "we'll pay you less," candidates will see through it, and your reputation will suffer.

But if you genuinely evaluate candidates on skills, compensate fairly, promote based on performance, and communicate transparently, you can overcome candidate skepticism and access a much broader talent pool.

The key is showing, not just telling. Publish salary ranges. Share examples of skills-based hires who've succeeded. Use actual skills assessments. Be transparent about what "skills-based" means at your company.

Candidates aren't skeptical because they don't believe in skills-based hiring—they're skeptical because they've been burned before. Prove you're different, and they'll give you a chance.