Over qualified - it does exist!

graham1000

amber1979 wrote: »

I am not sure it is so daft, really!

On this thread alone, we've alread had posters state that they would employ a "worse" canditate purely on the basis of personality, the old stereotype about shy people not wanting to interact with people....

Over Qualified Amber can mean as follows..... It's a catch all for **** off cos your 1. Too old 2. We dont like the look of you 3. ect ect ect

Any

amber1979 wrote: »

I am not sure it is so daft, really!

On this thread alone, we've alread had posters state that they would employ a "worse" canditate purely on the basis of personality, the old stereotype about shy people not wanting to interact with people....

It is complete cra* what you are talking about.

Worse candidate in your eyes is candidate with no degree for example - even if it is purely admin job. Typing skills sufice in such a job and more qualified person will very understandably not stay for long.

The selection process looks at all aspects and matches the most suitable person. Not THE most qualified, just the most qualified for THE job and then how they fit the team.

My ex boss has in past lost 4 people because of 1 person who didn't fit in for example. My current boss has spent twice last year 7.5k on agency finding fee for 2 people who stayed 6 mths and then f***ed off.

These are the reasons why employers are so carefull. Not your rubbish about "going down the pub with me".

lucylucky

Strider590 wrote: »

Roger that!!

If you know more than the supervisor/manager interviewing you, you might as well walk out of the door.

"know more" in what sense?

amber1979

Googlewhacker wrote: »

And getting on with someone is often the best way of employing someone, I would rather employ someone who is slightly worse than another candidate if I felt their attitude and personailty was far more suitable for the job

ahem.

All this stuff about "fitting in" as well...

You know, it's no wonder that businesses are struggling and many of our public services are shoddy, if they follow these recruitment policies. :rotfl:

lucylucky

amber1979 wrote: »

ahem.

All this stuff about "fitting in" as well...

You know, it's no wonder that businesses are struggling and many of our public services are shoddy, if they follow these recruitment policies. :rotfl:

What policies? Employing the most suitable candidate?

What would you rather companies do?

EDIT - realised that you are just trolling now.

amber1979

lucylucky wrote: »

What policies? Employing the most suitable candidate?

What would you rather companies do?

EDIT - realised that you are just trolling now.

There is no need to be obtuse, I apologised for calling you shallow.

You know full well what I mean, as in hire the people who have the greatest level of knowledge, experience and qualifications in relation to the job, as opposed to the one you like the look of.

I suggest you check my profile, I am a real poster and there is no need to be so rude. Name-calling does nothing but lessen YOUR argument.

Googlewhacker

amber1979 wrote: »

ahem.

All this stuff about "fitting in" as well...

You know, it's no wonder that businesses are struggling and many of our public services are shoddy, if they follow these recruitment policies. :rotfl:

I can now see why you didn't get employed if you are not going to understand what I am saying.

amber1979

Googlewhacker wrote: »

I can now see why you didn't get employed if you are not going to understand what I am saying.

I understand far too well.

Googlewhacker

amber1979 wrote: »

I understand far too well.

Obviously not because you keep believing that employers would hire purely on personality which is not what I have said at any point but I would however hire someone with a 2.1 if I felt their attitude and ability to do the job was greater than someone who got a first at university.

Both are capable of doing the job but the person with the slightly worse grade at university would be better to do the job.

lucylucky

amber1979 wrote: »

There is no need to be obtuse, I apologised for calling you shallow.

You know full well what I mean, as in hire the people who have the greatest level of knowledge, experience and qualifications in relation to the job, as opposed to the one you like the look of.

I suggest you check my profile, I am a real poster and there is no need to be so rude. Name-calling does nothing but lessen YOUR argument.

I apologise.

I thought that since you have been unable to understand the rationale behind the recruitment process you were on here trying to wind people up.

No one has suggested, as far as I am aware, that people have been hired because the interviewer likes the look of them.

"knowledge, experience and qualifications" are part of the mix not all of it.

Only recently have you started to mention experience, your original gripe was that you were deemed to be over qualified.