Got rejected by a potential employer on the grounds of overcompetence.
I did well at the interview. I produced not one but two different solutions to the test problem that was given to me, with time to spare. Today, I receive an e-mail where they say that they are afraid they can't provide me with 'conditions suitable for my level of knowledge and skills'.
How in the world am I supposed to get re-employed if I get rejected from entry-level jobs because of my overcompetence, but don't have the job experience in the area where I can work long-term for the non-entry-level jobs?
I love crapitalism. /s
Lie about your job experience, every company is different anyway so if you have a good grasp of the basic skills and tools you need for you field just lie.
Yeah i don't like it either but it's not something you're allowed to be bad at. Think of it like youre talking to a pig. You never tell em the truth, you play the game. It's not lying, this a dance with moves both parties know. Bow your head, say the lines, play the part. I promise you the interviewer is doing the same. Don't make the mistake thinking you're making a human connection. Both sides just need to fit the role someone else wrote for them, and both sides will be happy if you play your part well.
Dont think of it as lying, it's more than that. It's an elaborate play and you need to fulfill your role
No i don't like it either, but i am good at it. I always feel like shit after but i get to contemplate suicide with a full belly in my own bed.
What's the barrier to applying to higher level jobs? Is it the requirement for "years of experience"?
Why not just make it true in your head? If it says "five years of experience with Python" or whatever it is, why not count years you were interested in it? The hard year numbers are all HR fluff anyway. You don't have to lie, just be flexible with your definitions.
Thing is, you won't know which interviews you are supposed to be the dummy and which you are supposed to be competent. Its astounding that OP even got any input on why they were rejected.
Roughly a decade ago, my boss at the time had declined to hire a hatted chef (the Australian equivalent of a Michelin Star chef) for our pub so this is definitely a thing that happens.
But I think it's because they don't want to have someone that could easily leave if overworked and/or underpaid. They're less exploitable.
No, I've been on the other side of hiring committees and seen this argument. Along with other stunningly dumb ones like "if she isn't job hopping and has 8 years rising the ranks in her previous job she can't be "hungry" enough to work here"
and
"this person is too up to date with processes, it's like they're already looking for a new job when they get the old one.
Companies actively select out what the Soviets called "Shock-workers" in favour of ones that appear to work. Adjust behaviour accordingly.
Crapitalism is amazing, isn't it? Guess I'll have to die because the system is set up in a way to both force working-class people to constantly look for work, but also to make it so that people who are viewed as capable of finding work elsewhere to be denied employment.
today is my first day at seventeen new jobs. half of them i will show up to and leave at lunch, the other half i will never show up to at all. why? the world may never know.