Question for anybody involved with recruitment.

SueC_2

amber1979 wrote: »

Otherwise, some interesting stuff.

I recently had a rather "heated debate" about the over-qualified issue. My friend was convinced that it simply does not exist. They implied that most employers would be more than happy to take on somebody with far more qualifications than the job required. It's interesting to hear somebody else concur with me on this one!

In my opinion there's over qualified and there's over qualified.

The current climate presents a fantastic opportunity for employers to 'grab a bargain' - ie. recruit someone of a higher calibre than they would ordinarily be able to recruit for the salary on offer. This would probably be someone who has been working at a higher grade than the vacancy, but has been made redundant and is willing to drop a grade / payscale rather than stay unemployed. They are likely to over-perform in the job, be incredibly grateful that they have a job, and stay loyal to the employer until they have worked their way back up to their normal grade of employment.

That's one type of over-qualified. The other type is where the candidate's skills are so far removed from the requirements of the role that it is blatantly obvious that they will purely be using it as a short-term post while they look for something more suitable. They are likely to cost the employer time and expense in training, then !!!!!! off again before the employer has seen a return on their investment.

Needless to say, the first type of over qualified is far more likely to get recruited than the second!

amber1979

I suppose the challange is to make yourself appear as much like the first kind of overqualified, SueC.

Fluffi

I agree with SueC. I'd be very wary of recruiting someone who is overqualified because you spend time training them while all the time they will be secretly looking for a job that is more relevant to their qualifications and then leave (probably just at the point when they've started to be useful). Much safer to employ someone who isn't overqualified and will have less other job options open to them.

Also too many qualifications especially if all full time (e.g. a bachelors, masters and Phd) can look like the person is scared of being in the "real world" and workplace pressure. I'm not saying this is the case for the OP at all - but its definitely possible to be overqualified and to scare employers by spending too much time doing academic studies/research. If the employer has lots of applicants then they don't need to even consider the over or under qualified applicants.

smartpicture

amber1979 wrote: »

Maybe I have horrendous BO and nobody has told me? :eek:

I once rejected someone in the first 3 seconds of an interview, before they'd even uttered a word, on the basis of their massively overpowering smell of perfume, so anything's possible!

Did you try ringing either of the two firms you got interviews with for feedback afterwards? Many will give you some idea why you were rejected. Or you could try doing a practice interview with a willing acquaintance, videoing it and playing it back to see how you come across. To be honest, two interviews from 50 job applications isn't bad going in today's job climate.

RosaBernicia

I'd also agree with SueC. I work in the public sector and we have to jump through endless hoops on recruitment, so can't actually reject someone who appears vastly overqualified, but frankly if interview doesn't reveal some pretty good reasons why they would stay then I'd find ways to offer the job to someone else.

Having said that, we have recently recruited a couple of general project managers who fit her description of 'bargains' - both have worked elsewhere at a higher level and at this point are very happy just to have jobs, especially in an organisation that's stable and good to its staff.

I'm not sure what to suggest to help... perhaps you could emphasise your dedication to your field, to help show that you're not just looking for a short term stepping stone?

Good luck

Rosa xx

purplepardalis

amber1979 wrote: »

I really do not think that you require my assistence with that particular activity.

Brilliant!

I have this mental image of Proc, sitting at the the PC\laptop - hunched over, reading a post. Sitting back for a minute and compiling the most offensive put down whilst dressing it up as 'advice'. Typing, reading back. Clicking 'submit reply'......

Sitting back - looking for another victim..... repeat ad finitum.....

And then furiously clicking refresh for the fallout......

I'm sure it's entertainment for him\her but I cannot imagine a situation that I'd need to resort to it!!!

I'm a tough cookie but I hope no one reads Proc's replies and takes them seriously. I feel sad that someone would get upset...

So, carry on the rest of you that post constructive replies!

XX

sexki11en

Hmmmmmmm, I wouldn't think this is the reason tbh. I mean, lets face it, women are of childbearing age from about 13-45 these days so that would count out most of the female working age population! If it were really the reason, NO women would be working.

Much as I think it could have been put better, I would agree with Proc. It could be your CV - and I know you say it's professionally written, but as a recruitment consultant, I find them the worst! You need some of your personality in your CV and if it's written by someone else, that isn't going to happen. Maybe use the one they've written as a template and re write it yourself - tailor it to each position you're applying for.

Are you sure you're applying for jobs within your skills? Out of ever 100 applicants I get at the moment, i'm lucky if 1/4 of the applicants actually have anywhere near what the job spec states they need for the role. The other 3/4 are just chancing their luck and blanket applying for everything in sight.

Finally, awful as it is, right now, for every position advertised, there are over 100 applicants for every position going - it's really touch out there and unless you're the absolute best at what you do, you will get passed over at the moment and theres little you can do about that. Having said that, I've seen a slight upturn in recruitment so hopefully it will continue.

Keep going, you will get there eventually.

SK x

Oldernotwiser

amber1979 wrote: »

Strangely I was told to keep the fact that I was married off my CV by a careers advisor once. It does make me wonder....

:eek:

You were told that because it's irrelevant; I would tell a man the same thing.

It seems quite straightforward to me, you're overqualified and are presenting an inappropriate CV. The fact that your CV has been professionally written tells me that you're using the same one for all your applications,which is absolutely wrong, particularly in your situation. Using individually tailored skills based CVs will minimise your qualifications and emphasise what you can offer to an employer.

Zazen999

amber1979 wrote: »

CV has been professionally written.

I am surprised that they didn't recommend that you submit a different CV depending on the job application. You should identify the main areas and levels that you wish to work in; and each different one should have a different CV. For each job; complete one page of the CV to match the job in question. Yes, this means rewriting it [or a portion of it ] each time.

I have recently been turned down for interview by quite a few people because they said they thought I'd get bored and want to move on quickly. So, you have to dumb down for these sorts of jobs. Sad but true - you think they would think 'bargain' but they don't.


ETA: Cross posted same point as ONW.

wontfallforit

amber1979 wrote: »

Do employers and recruitment agencies really avoid hiring women who they see as a potential risk? As in maternity pay? I've heard this as a rumour many times.

The reason I ask is this. I have two degrees, a post-graduate qualification and experience in more than one field... Yet I appear to be totally unemployable. Out of fifty applications I have been invited to two interviews. Still unemployed. Even jobs usually considered appropriate for school leavers have rejected me!

So, is this true?

Hiya OP,

As has been pointed out a couple of times, you're overqualified for 'school leavers' jobs. Even in a climate where graduates are supposedly fighting for shelf-stacking jobs, you're wasting your time putting your postgrad qualifications on your CV and targetting so-called "lesser" jobs.

It's not that employers think you can't do the job, it's that they don't want you to do it. Many employers can't afford for a double graduate to take up a junior position with them, work for a few months, and move on swiftly with the valuable experience they've gained. Much better to hire someone much more 'raw', who will be potentially more appreciative of any training/experience they gain, and will likely stick around a lot longer.

If you're just looking to get your foot on the ladder at this point, consider removing your postgrad from your CV at the very least...maybe your undergrad qualifications too, depending upon the job.