Over qualified - it does exist!

lucylucky

amber1979 wrote: »

I understand far too well.

You certainly give the impression of not understanding, even if you do.

Any

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.

Listen, I understand that you are upset and emotional because you didn't get the job, but this argument is going nowhere.

The bottom line is, unless you are willing to listen and understand why employers are reluctant to hire people the deem over qualified (ie fear of paying for them, training them and they will leave when better offer arise or of fear of causing causing unhappiness in the department) you will not say the right things in the interviews.

It is up to you what you take from the experience and turn it to your advantage.

anniecave

Amber - I started reading this post as I got told exactly that - that I was overqualified - 3 weeks or go.

I am unemployed and searching for work as my previous position finished due to redundancy. The job I applied for and got an interview for would have been great, and I'd have loved to do it and i would have been happy doing it. However the feedback was true, in the sense that I am doing studying, and that if they had offered me the job, I would have enjoyed the job for a couple of years, and moved on after this to something different or higher up or whatever. This company was a small company and there wouldn't have been anywhere for me to move to if I did want to develop, and they were recruiting through an agency so wanted someone who would stay.

So I am still looking... (and I am working hard at studying.. just job seeking alone is very depressing)

Anyway, for you. You are obviously qualified in something. I think you put some abbreviations earlier. What areas of work would be best suited to your qualifications?

Have you no experience in your ideal career(s), or have you some but not enough in some areas? Or are you very skilled and very experienced but there are just no jobs out there?

Do you know anyone who works in the area who may be able to offer you some work shadowing or similar? Can you do voluntary work in any relevant areas? I believe you can do so many hours a week voluntary work and still receive benefits.
Can you apply for lesser paid positions (or lower down the grade) in your chosen area, rather than just general admin or other jobs that don't even relate to what you're qualified in.
Are you in touch with any previous colleagues who might have some leads in to a new place?
Registered with relevant websites?

Keep looking. I'm a shy person too, and I haven't given up! I still think there is something out there I can do....! I just have to find it.
Off to send off some speculative emails....

Judas

Overqualified simply means you havent taylored your CV or application form suitably to match the job requirements and explain why you want that job.

There may be some odd cases where it the case but for me the vast majority of the time it is an excuse where someone has simply not shown enough to get a job.

ug005

howdy, can I join the discussion too, pretty please? (But spare me the unpleasantry). I thought over qualified meant too many qualifications not enough work experience. In which case the employer has a right to think twice before hiring that person on the basis that the candidate lacks in real experience.

If on the other hand you have enough relevant wok experience, but you decided to go above and beyond with your academic learning then that is just self-development, quest for knowledge and all that jazz. It's something that should be commended.

Is the recruitment process fair? I think it's a pain in the !!!!! You have to market yourself which is a skill in itself. Even if, say you are a competent accountant -a job that involves no marketing skill whatsoever, if you want to get employed, you need to learn how to sell yourself. Usually by spending time and money on online resources such as interview technique books or by attending seminars. Just so that you can get noticed above the other one hundread applicants applying for the same job.

My old sales boss used to say 'every day there is a lion who has to run faster than another lion to catch a prey!' haha

So do what it takes to demonstarte that you are the perfect candidate. If you find yourself overqualified, market it in a way that works in your favour.

heretolearn_2

'You really shouldn't discriminate against intelligent, qualified applicants just because you fear they might do the job a little too well and will want to hop off and find something else a few weeks later - I find this terrible, almost as bad as companies not employing young women for fear they might fall pregnant and go on maternity leave from the company (it does go on!)'

That's daft, sorry. Refusing to employ young women because of totally hypothetical situation that may or may not arise (pregnancy) is sheer discrimination. I'm sure it does still happen some places. It's plain wrong.

But how is that even slightly comparable to employing someone you know doesn't really want the job?

i.e. we were recently recruiting for a bookkeeper, needed basic AAT type qualification and/or experience, part-time role, and got applications from fully qualified accountants with 10 years experience and an MBA, who were used to earning 5 times what we were going to be paying. Several of them. How serious do you think they were about the job? It would have been a few weeks to fill in time until they found something better suited to them. As a small firm, having to re-recruit so soon would have been a disaster in time and expense. If we'd needed a temp we'd have asked for one.

We ended up recruiting a lovely lady, been studying AAT for the last few years while at home with children, only 6 months experience, but she can do the job (she's been great so far), wants to work part-time locally while she continues studying for higher level exams and spends time with her kids. It's been perfect for us and perfect for her. She was exactly the right recruit despite having lower qualifications and less experience than some of the other applicants and it's all working out very well. She enjoys her work and we are happy with her. Oh, and she is perfectly intelligent despite having lower level of education. I've found plenty of dumb graduates in my working life!

To your way of thinking we were wrong to do that - we should have turned her down and appointed the wrong person entirely just because they had higher quals and experience. What's wrong with wanting a happy worker and a happy employer?

heretolearn_2

Amber,

I can see you are just venting as feeling v. peed off right now.

But if you are getting interviews you are halfway there. Unfortunately you don't know the calibre of the people you are competing against. How do you know those jobs you didn't get went to some bimbo they want to go down the pub with? What sort of peculiar jobs have you been applying for if that really has been what they look for?

I accept there is always an element of whether your face fits or not. Personality, if you like, but more about 'attitude'. Part of that is how you can work with other people. It's really important in many jobs. Especially in small firms. It's not about being friends with people or chatting about hobbies, but about being able to get along with them and communicate effectively so that you can do your work efficiently.

We use a points based assessment system at interviews, awarding X many points to each candidate in different areas. Is it always the person with the top points who gets the job? No. Because there are other factors as well. The points helps us narrow it down to the top three, and then we make our decision, and not lightly, as a wrong decision really causes a huge problem. We never employ anyone because we think we'd like them as a friend. In fact, we employ a couple of people I don't really like much, but they are good at their jobs so who cares. Work is work. Social is social. I can't think of anywhere I've worked that recruited for social reasons.

Shyness isn't necessarily a bad thing. What type of work are you looking for? If it involves making presentations, or customer service, or leading a team, then you can't be shy as it will effect your work. But if it's sitting on your own doing IT support, it wouldn't really matter.

But lack of confidence at the interview tends to have a knock on effect on the replies you give. Sometimes people fail our interviews not because being shy would be a problem in their work, but being shy in the interview has stopped them answering our questions properly. If you think this may be your problem then you really just have to work on at least faking confidence. Did you know for every 100 people who act really confident, probably 95 of them are totally faking and feeling sick inside!

Have a bit more faith in yourself. Work on interview skills. You are getting the interviews - just push a bit harder and get that job!

eamon

OK my turn to rant. Folks, its not rocket science why people are applying for jobs that may appear to be below their ability. They have bills to pay etc. This country is stuffed with thousands of employers and recruiters that either don't listen, watch or read the news. Its bizzare that with thousands of firms and hundreds of thousands of people adversely effected by first the credit/banking fiasco and then the current recession that job seekers are still faced with this crazy thinking. We have just had a general election and getting people back to work was one of the top priorities along with solving our collective debt crisis. Its as if the types of people mentioned above leave their intelligence and commonsense outside on the pavement when they arrive for work.

As for the time and expense of recruitment only for new recruits to leave shortly after. This is nonsense of the highest order. These employers and recruiters should first look at their policies & procedures and don't throw out the baby with the bath water.

Rant over!

Eamon

real1314

amber1979 wrote: »

In other words, I really should just give up....

I'm (believe it or not!) quite a shy, geeky person in real life. I'm also terrible at feighing interest in subjects I don't care about. My hobbies are not your average ones as well.

People do not like shy people, they think they're "stuck up".

When you're at an interview and the interviewer does a bit of "chit-chat / warm-up" and asks if you like football / what team do you support, if you look bored as hell, they'll think twice about employing you.
Getting on with other employees is pretty much an essential skill, perhaps you are actually under-qualified in this type of skill?

Showing interest in things other people do is a great way to learn about them, and build good working relationships.

busterian

heretolearn wrote: »

'we were recently recruiting for a bookkeeper, needed basic AAT type qualification and/or experience, part-time role, and got applications from fully qualified accountants with 10 years experience and an MBA, who were used to earning 5 times what we were going to be paying. Several of them. How serious do you think they were about the job? It would have been a few weeks to fill in time until they found something better suited to them. As a small firm, having to re-recruit so soon would have been a disaster in time and expense. If we'd needed a temp we'd have asked for one".

Totally agree on this heretolearn.

I am currently recruiting at work for a Personal Injury Claims Litigator. Whilst the role requires a Law Degree and experience, I have had applicants who have been called to the Bar. I won't interview them as I feel that they would be just wasting my time and their own time because of being overqualified.