Turned down for interview as they think you will get bored!!

Little_Miss_Uni-Debt

I worked in recruitment for 3 years and know exactly what process they go through. I don't think the OP should be too angry/worried about the "overqualified" remark.

Companies can't (and rightly shouldn't) interview EVERYONE that applies, that meets their requirements. They do have to filter, that's why it's called shortlisting - it's meant to be a short list.

Unfortunately (as I experienced many times) if a company advertises a post and they get a good response - chances are there will be many candidates with exactly the same experience.

If you've only got 5 interview slots to offer there comes a point where you have to start rejecting perfectly good candidates for interview. You have to reject people for the smallest of reasons, sometimes even a hunch.

You have to reject people from both sides, over and under qualified.

For example, I know a restaurant that was hiring a bar manager. Boring work, long unsociable hours, poor pay. They had many over qualified people apply which they rejected. They picked those for interview that were single with no kids because they knew it meant they didn't have demands from their outside life that would stop them working crazy hours. It's not fair but that is what the role requires and they don't want to say this openly.

At the end of the day when there is a stack of very similar CV's and you can't see any difference in their experience, you have to start judging on other criteria. In this case, they judged on who they thought would stay in the role longest.

smileylondongal

Mistral001 wrote: »

If it turns out that it was more to do with a combination of a lot of factors (which is usually the case) rather than just the reason given as feedback, the employer who possibly feels that they are helping out by giving feedback finds that they are the "bad guy" all of a sudden in the eyes of the turned-down candidate as they see it as the only reason for rejection.

Thank you, I understand now. However, I think a really good selection process will try and avoid and 'ad hoc' feelings about a candidate and base it on hard facts which means it's a lot easier to give the candidate feedback and is based on truth. I've only ever worked in those circumstances but have no doubt there are companies that find it hard to give reasons with a basic recruitment process.

smileylondongal

Caroline_a wrote: »

I've been told that I was overqualified before in interview, but just said that it would enable the company to use me for more challenging things that came up if managers were overstretched. It always worked.QUOTe

In fairness, Caroline, that's worked for you but I think you've been very lucky in this regard. It didn't, as I mention above, work for me. I appreciate it was an odd set of circumstances but I can understand - to a degree - the frustrations of others when overqualification seems to be the growing 'blanket' reply.

heretolearn_2

I'd probably not give an overqualified person a chance again. I know that may feel unfair on some, but in the end someone gets a job and there's no law or even natural justice in that being the person with most qualifications.

We've just had a mare recruiting for a part time admin role. We thought 'get the best we can' so since December we've had two people who thought they were too good to do the basic stuff and did nothing but make excuses for not taking on the whole role, one person who came for one day and left the next after getting called by another firm with a better payoffer, and one who left after 3 days after being offered a full time job. So after four well-qualified, experienced and competent people who were useless, we've gone for someone who has hardly any qualifications and no recent experience, and she's settling in nicely. I'd rather take the time to train her up from scratch than have to faff about recruiting yet another person who will either be too proud for the role or !!!!!! off ASAP.

'Best' in one way isn't always 'best for the job'.

LadyMissA

heretolearn wrote: »

I'd probably not give an overqualified person a chance again. I know that may feel unfair on some, but in the end someone gets a job and there's no law or even natural justice in that being the person with most qualifications.

We've just had a mare recruiting for a part time admin role. We thought 'get the best we can' so since December we've had two people who thought they were too good to do the basic stuff and did nothing but make excuses for not taking on the whole role, one person who came for one day and left the next after getting called by another firm with a better payoffer, and one who left after 3 days after being offered a full time job. So after four well-qualified, experienced and competent people who were useless, we've gone for someone who has hardly any qualifications and no recent experience, and she's settling in nicely. I'd rather take the time to train her up from scratch than have to faff about recruiting yet another person who will either be too proud for the role or !!!!!! off ASAP.

'Best' in one way isn't always 'best for the job'.

then you have had very bad luck with people or made poor choices. I am not too proud hence me applying for all roles even minimum wage ones where they were just for answering the phones, faxing and photocopying.

bartelbe

Your in the classic cache 22. You have built up a good CV, I'm guessing you have a decent set of qualifacations, and you still can't get a job. Graduates are told that they mustn't be picky and take any work that is going. However if they apply for a job they are overqualified for, they are rejected, because they might move to a better position. It is getting to the absurd position, that you might actually be better off failing all your exams, you would heve more chance of finding work.

LadyMissA

bartelbe wrote: »

Your in the classic cache 22. You have built up a good CV, I'm guessing you have a decent set of qualifacations, and you still can't get a job. Graduates are told that they mustn't be picky and take any work that is going. However if they apply for a job they are overqualified for, they are rejected, because they might move to a better position. It is getting to the absurd position, that you might actually be better off failing all your exams, you would heve more chance of finding work.

I am not a graduate but have 20 years accounts experience. Just have no idea where to go next or what to apply for its doing my head in