Over qualified - it does exist!

Person_one

Any wrote: »

It is completely logical assumption. If you want to make your side of story clear you need to work better on your covering letter.

If you think that any employer is going to invite to interview everyone who sent in a CV, then you need to wake up to the real world and realise how many CVs is sent in for each job.

At what point did I state that I think everyone who sends in a CV should be interviewed?

I've had a few interviews actually, and it has come up in all of them that they think I should be doing a 'better' job. This is despite my applications and myself in interview making it very very clear why I want to start a new career and why I want to start at the bottom of the ladder.

But some seem to see the degree, the previous higher salary and think "she's bright, she's got a bit of ambition and this job is low status and low pay so whatever she says we'll ignore her and make our own minds up about whether or not she'll stick it out." To be honest, I'm not sure why they bother interviewing me sometimes. Its flattering to be told I am capable of more, but it doesn't pay rent!

Its very frustrating to be completely honest about your reasons for doing something and still not be believed.

heretolearn_2

That's something I'd believe. I did say earlier we do consider 'overqualified' people if they have a good reason to apply for this particular job. Usually they don't, it's clear it's just a stopgap. In your case, if you said you wanted to change careers I'd ask you why and find out what you knew about this line of work. If you've done your research, have a good reason, and can show me that, of course I'd believe you. If you sat there umming and ahing and clearly not really knowing much about our industry, I'd know you weren't serious.

MrsManda

eamon wrote: »

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.

But eamon, this is why employers can pick who they want to work for them. It's a simple case of supply and demand. There are so many people who are unemployed applying for jobs that it's an employers market. Even the most basic jobs these days get 100s of applications and therefore the employer can choose who they think is best for the job and the company.

I've often applied for jobs for which I am 'overqualified' because I have A-levels but there's always been a reason I can give to the employer as to why I've applied for that particular role.

As for the OP's comment of about feigning interest in something she doesn't care about, I don't think it's necessary. If the interviewer asks about your opinion about football and you don't watch it, say so but follow up with 'I prefer rugby, archery, medeval reenactment...', something to keep the conversation going.

As with all of these things you have to learn to play the game, not just expect someone to give you a job because you think you are the best person for it as you have no idea about the rest of the candidates being interviewed.

Evilm

I've actually been told that an employer thought I would be bored as I'd done higher roles before.

I've also been told that I have too much variety on my CV and that they chose someone who "specialised" in the role type rather than a all rounder.

I've once been told that I have too much movement in my Cv o(e.g. too many jobs for my age) but thats mostly because I will take temporary roles that others turn down because they aren't prepared to consider rather than waiting for the next permanent role to appear.

It does happen but mostly you just have to hang on for the right role and company and some good luck!

ariarnia

Person_one wrote: »

You said know again! Unless you're psychic please admit that you can't know 100% You are making assumptions, that in my case and I'm sure lots of others, are completely untrue.

That's a very fallacious argument - in the most Aristotelian sense I can’t know anything. I don't know the sun's going to come up again tomorrow - I have a reasonable reason to believe I can trust my assumption and act accordingly though.

You're acting like it's your right to have this job - you have no right to be hired - the manager can hire who he wants the same as a shopkeeper can serve who he wants. As long as it's not one of the big discriminations he doesn’t have to disclose his reasons to you and you need him more than he needs you.

Marteebies

lucylucky wrote: »

If there were no jobs why would anyone advertise them?

Companies do post an ad online for e-marketing purposes or to increase site traffic.

There are a lot of dummy ads all over the internet. :mad:

woody01

amber1979 wrote: »

That can be the only explanation.

I have been applying for dozens of jobs, even the entry level office admin jobs are not interested.

Yet, still we see articles in the media about how employers are horrified at the quality of the people they hire.

Here's an idea - stop employing people on the basis that you like them personally and don't find them threatening and employ them based on their skills and abilities.

:mad:

So you get turned down and post your reasoning behind this.

Sorry, but most people that 'believe' they are over qualified, are simply using that as an excuse.
Ever thought that you might just not be good enough?

I wouldn't consider a degree as overqualified for any job, in itself, but it depends on other factors.

Degrees, unless academic (Maths/Sciences) are pretty much worthless nowadays and i think that is where this misconception comes from.

The amount of graduates i have interviewed and turned away you wouldn't believe.
For some reason, they think that a 2 bit degree, from a very average university, entitles them to 20-40% higher pay than the next man, when in reality, a chimp with a low IQ could get a 2-1.

woody01

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.

There is FAR more to it than that, and unless you realise this pretty quickly, the dole is where you will stay.

Your attitude stinks tbh, and any good interviewer would pick up on this. <--why you are going nowhere fast.

flossy_splodge

Any wrote: »

Once you have your own company I wonder whether you are going to change your view once you paid advertisement, agency fee, lost XY hourse to inverview people etc every second month...

If that's how often a company is having to recruit perhaps they have in fact got it all wrong and shouldn't imagine they're so bloody clever they can second guess an applicants intention to stay.

flossy_splodge

amber1979 wrote: »

I didn't say that I don't like interacting with people. These are the kind of assumptions that people make about those who aren't "bubbly".

I couldn't agree more.
If ever there was an expression I hate with a passion it's that a person is 'bubbly'.
Who cares.
I want someone competent, professional and trainable, don't actually care so much if they may become my best buddy.