Answered: Is there such a thing as "overqualified"?
Answered: Is there such a thing as "overqualified"?
Or is it just a term made up to find an easier reason to reject job applicants?
So it looks like the consensus is "overqualified" is a euphemism for
- "I'm afraid you'll leave this job because I'm assuming you'll have better chances elsewhere" aka "you won't accept being my slave forever due to lack of opportunities"
- "I'm afraid you might actually understand how shitty it is here and want to improve things. can't have that"
- "I don't want to figure out how much to pay you when you know your worth"
- "You cost too much"
- "I have other reasons, but won't say them"
Sometimes it means "We don't want to spend a lot of money training this guy who we won't be able to retain if he gets a better offer."
At really entry-level jobs like fast food, where training is quick and turnover is always high, it sometimes also means "This guy might be able to read the workers' rights poster on the door and explain the workers' comp program to the idiot who spilled boiling grease on his foot.
I don't think this has been mentioned, but it is also used to hide age discrimination. HR can't say you are too old, so they say overqualified.
Companies look for a person who is smart enough to do the job but dumb enough not to leave.
The supervisor/manager doesn't want someone who knows more working under them. Puts their position into question. It's better for them to hire someone who makes them look vital.
I’m so glad my boss isn’t like this.
We just hired a PhD in Astrophysics and none of us have more than a bachelors I think. A few might have masters.
flight risk or/and asking too high of salary
What does that have to do with qualifications? If a PhD applies for a job at a fastfood joint and asks for the same wage as everybody else, that has nothing to do with qualifications.
The guy with the PhD is much more likely to get frustrated to the point that they're either quitting early or stirring up trouble to "improve" things. Both cost money. That's a risk most employers aren't likely to take.
It's not a good comparison. You can also say that a PhD doesn't help you at all to be a fast food worker.
For a given profession, if you're looking to hire an entry level person at an entry level salary, and someone applies who has decades of experience in that profession, it makes a difficult situation for the organization. When it's time for raises, how do you fairly compare that person to the actual entry level people? If the person could legitimately get double their salary, are they going to stay on your team for the lower salary? Stuff like that makes it problematic.
perception of the slave owner drives the decision making process here.
Definitely... Someone with a doctorate applying at McDonalds is just looking for a stop gap and will be gone the instant something better comes along.
I feel like you could have picked a better example than the fast food industry, which literally is a stop-gap job for almost anyone of working age lmao.
Yes. In professional settings that means with that degree you can expect a certain salary, and the position pays considerably less.
Colloquially it's also used for: You'll be bored with a task. Or waste your potential.
Or, you'll leave as soon as you get a higher paying job so they don't want to hire you.
That's what it is at my work. I had a req opened for an early/mid career position (say a BS plus 6 to 10 years of experience). I had a number of applicants who had 30+ years of experience. They'd qualify for two or three job codes higher than the position I had, with significantly higher salary. It just doesn't make sense to hire like that.
It does if you have career progression and promotions in mind. Also if you're looking for some new insights to shake things up.
Definitely. At the last corporate job I had I was told at the very beginning of the interview that I was overqualified and that the only reason I was there was because their trainer (a former coworker of mine) said they had to interview me.
I got the job. I was thinking about quitting when they fired me because I didn't park my car on the property because I was following the rules.
I was thinking about quitting because the place was a total mess. The first clue was during the interview they warned me they didn't have KPIs at this call center job. When I actually started working I noticed that I had no one person to report to, massive inefficiencies, I could have spent a day or two creating from scratch their much needed IVR and that after three months on the phone not one person I started with had had a review of any kind. I had 20 years of call center experience and 20 years of Linux administration and I was fighting back every urge to rearrange the furniture because this major company was a complete shit show. I was over qualified. I should have never taken the job. They should have never hired me.
More qualification might also translate into doing a job less well. Sometimes what’s important is prompt response, staying on script, getting many jobs done. A deeper understanding could mean you’re more likely to be bored by the tedium of the more shallow role, more likely to spend too much time on an individual task, more likely to address a concern completely rather than adequately or quickly
For example, I am “overqualified” for many IT help desk roles and you bet I’d be slower than people that are good at the role. I’d be driven crazy by the repetitiveness and by stupid human tricks. At the end of my probation I’d be fired because while I answered that one customer in depth, my responsiveness metrics would be shit, I’d have addressed fewer than expected tickets, and I’d be dying to escape. Kudos to all of you who can do a better job than I.
"If your router costs less than your PC, and your PC costs less than a house, I can't help you."
- me. I stole it from someone here on Lemmy to replace my former goto-phrase: "Does it has a screen? No? Sorry bud. I only do machines with a lonely VGA port that isn't even in use."
This was me a while back. I used to tell my wife that the fact that she didn't know anything about tech meant my company would actually consider her a better employee because she would stick to the script and hold the company line, even if it was bullshit, because she wouldn't know it was bullshit.
Yeah. I've seen great designers get noticeably frustrated when they can't optimize the project to the level they could in school because there is a budget and maintenance factors that keep it from happening.
You also start getting into issues where that staff can vastly outperform other staff and it creates tension in compensation.
Definitely, it is extremely rare though, and usually has a good reason for it. Had one guy I worked with who used to be Rihanna’s sound engineer, I asked him why he stopped doing that and started working for a local corporate AV company. His simple response was that it wasn’t worth the stress, and he got to stay home and see his kids.
Dude was easily one of the best sound engineers I’ve ever heard, he could make anything sound way better than it had any right to be, and yet he was the local guy pushing cases, running cable, and basically playing second chair to all the corporate AV guys thinking they were sound engineers, including myself for a while. All because it meant he could see his kids and not be stressed about it.
I ended up making him my go to audio guy anytime I needed someone, and stepped back so I could learn.
I've seen a few people with PhD who want to be developers being put into management roles, getting quite unhappy.
That said, if this type of PhD clearly communicates they want to be developers, the often still get jobs, maybe with lower pay compared to the manager but a bit higher pay compared to the developer
Sure. More qualifications means more pay will be expected. And if all that needs done is The Thing for $, no reason to pay $$$ for The Thing+++.
Holy shit!!! I just discovered the biggest conspiracy theory of all time!!! JFK WASN'T EVEN KILLED AT ALL!!!
"When we do jobs, we get money for our qualifications! And we get our money based on this, that, and the other thing!"
It's very real, if you are too qualified for a position you are not going to be fulfilled in that role and you'll probably leave real fast or just be depressed as hell
That's an assumption. Maybe they want to switch careers.
Yeah, but hiring is a big series of assumptions. Resumes and interviews only give you so much confidence on how a person will actually do in the job.
Speaking for myself, I want to hire quickly. I get 10 resumes for 1 spot, I'm not going to agonize over whether the PhD is having a mid-life change and really wants the fast food job, or if they are going to split in a month, or hell, if they have some addiction or personal problem that prevents them from holding a job that matches their qualifications. If there's a candidate that meets the reqs and seems like a fit, I'm moving right along with them.
If the PhD is convincing in an interview that they're really just looking for a switch, sure, but I'm not going to waste a lot of time and energy waiting to be convinced when there are other candidates with a more expected profile also vying for the job.
Yes, it is a thing. Not always a bad thing necessarily, but it depends on the person and circumstances.
We are semi-skiller labor and won't hire someone with decades of experience because they'll be too stuck in their way to conform to our standards and operations.