To think that being over qualified is a thing

[Amatteroftime]

This isn't me being goady, far from it.

I currently have a very good job title but the job itself is poorly paid, just looks good on paper. I'm looking for part time work due to wanting to work around childcare, and will happily take a pay cut (that's saying something as I don't earn a lot after tax) as I will be saving on expenses in the long run.

I've applied for a couple and not got interviews. But I know people getting appointed to these posts have limited prior experience in the field with little to no qualifications. I have been told this by colleagues.

I have a degree and 7 years experience?

It's driving me mad! Is it looking over qualified for effectively a minimum wage job (not much more) or am I missing something? There's not a lot available in my area at the moment so I'm really trying to work out what I'm doing that might be off putting before applying again.

It depends. Maybe they think you are only going to stay for a while and then move on. Maybe they think you will get bored. Maybe there are candidates better suited to the job. Have you called them and asked for feedback?
What do you say in your cover letter? Maybe explain that you are looking for part time work due to other commitments but are still keen blah blah blah.

I wish I understood the entirely random world of recruiting. There's a lot of bollocks talked about how it's supposed to work but it seems to defy logic most of the time.

I have heard it suggested that lots of outfits won't recruit over-qualified staff because they will just leave when something better comes up. If that is true it's stupid - but it fits in with the picture.

@Pipandmum I haven't actually but think I will. It's the same line of work that I'm currently in.

I say all the normal bits really - good team player, work well individually, enjoy a busy environment, organised, blah blah. Obviously in better words. I have also included that I am now looking for a part time role in a similar line of work for the reasons that you have said, but still committed etc

Definitely - I've been told a number of times that the reason I've not been offered a job is because I'm over qualified and/or have too much higher level experience.

I'm at the ridiculous stage of having to try to balance interviews in such a way that I'm making it clear I DON'T want the kind of job I've had in the past, without making them think I'll sit on my arse all day & not be bothered. Currently not working due to health (one of the reasons I want to work at a much lower level than before), but dreading when I have had my assorted treatments then have to start looking again.

I have heard it suggested that lots of outfits won't recruit over-qualified staff because they will just leave when something better comes up. If that is true it's stupid - but it fits in with the picture.

That does make sense. Although frustratingly, it wouldn't happen with me because I live in a rural town with few employment opportunities, and I'm looking to ditch my 2 hours a day commuting and associated costs with travelling as it is!

I want to ask for feedback but I'm a bit nervous.

The reason I think it's a stupid view is that anyone could leave for a better job - the answer to that isn't to try and recruit people who are so thick and or useless they could never hope to get another job anywhere else.

It’s definitely a thing. I’ve also recruited someone over qualified for a role and whilst they said they didn’t mind they became quite difficult to manage as they felt they should be in charge (and they probably could have been but that wasn’t the role we had!). So I have sort of seen it from the other side too.
I think if you’re going into a more junior role to the one you are in, it’s worth saying how you respond to management, how you embrace the culture of the workplace etc etc.

Definitely. Sometimes because they are suspicious as to why you're out of work. Sometimes they've had bad experiences where a person thought they were "better" than the job. Sometimes they can only picture a certain person; say they take on a young person and train them up then they leave but they enjoy the imparting/ training side or they expect more enthusiasm from someone not jaded by the world of work.

I've also interviewed very qualified people who answer questions in a way that isn't at the right level. For very practical jobs linking absolutely everything to theory. I've had to badger them into saying they would also do the basics (notice a bin needed emptying etc).

I've been told I'm over qualified before - they said they didn't want to recruit me only to have me move on in 6 months when I found "something more suitable". I've always worked in the charity sector which tends to be high responsibility for low pay so if I've applied for jobs out of the sector I've often looked like I'm going for a huge jump in salary or a massive drop in responsibility. Neither have ever got me very far...

It's definitely a "thing" and employers are right to worry about it.

I have personal experience. I worked my way up to a directorship position, which was great, but the hours were ridiculously long and it was a 90 minute each way commute, so basically a minimum 12 hours away from home, often 15-18 hours if there was an evening meeting. I lasted 2 years, but then got married and decided enough was enough.

I saw an ideal job advertised, literally 5 minutes away, a few steps down the career ladder, but I decided the work/life balance was more important. I applied, and it was the main topic of conversation at the interview - they were worried about me getting bored, not being able to be under supervision/control of lesser qualified/less experienced managers, etc etc - I genuinely thought it would be fine and managed to persuade them I'd be happy to go down a few rungs. I got the job.

Virtually from the first day, I was incredibly frustrated about virtually everything. I could do the work in my sleep, far higher quality than others, and far faster. Certain sections of my work file had to be reviewed (as is normal in the profession), but the reviews were being done by people with lesser qualifications and less experience, so nothing but a box-ticking exercise. Managerial file reviews were the same. Very difficult to get used to this after several years when I was the one at the top doing the reviews of everyone else. Then came the firms' computer systems - antiquated - in my previous job, I'd fully computerised the firm, chose, implemented and trained the staff on the hardware, software, systems etc - the works. I could see just how crap their computer systems were - outdated software, crazy duplication (still re-keying data instead of export/import via csv files etc). I tried to keep my mouth shut and accept my lowly position, but just couldn't and started making suggestions to the management and owners - didn't go down well of course as they took it the wrong way.

And so it went on. I just couldn't find it in myself to just go to walk, sit in corner, do what I was told, and go home again. It just wasn't me. I'd seen and done it all in my previous job and could see so many ways to improve the firm and systems etc. I couldn't stay quiet, so I just made myself more and more unpopular as I tried to improve things. The owners were happy enough but the other staff really couldn't accept someone new coming in trying to change things. Eventually, the atmosphere was toxic and I had to leave. Owners were very supportive and offered me a managerial job so I could use my experience better, but I didn't want to go back to being a manager with the hours/stress, etc. I had to admit they were right from the outset and that I was wrong when I told them coming down the career ladder would be fine for me.

In the end, I went in a completely different direction. Based on my experience, I think the OP would be better to find a different job/industry to work in, where they could use some of their complimentary skills, rather than just staying in a similar job but at a lower level.

I have heard it suggested that lots of outfits won't recruit over-qualified staff because they will just leave when something better comes up. If that is true it's stupid

Well, not entirely. I work in an organisation that people are keen to join: large, progressive employer, great working environment. Sometimes people come for an entry level position in my team, just to get a foot in the door. While I understand that, I have a responsibility to: (a) the other people in the team to provide some continuity - they, not I, are responsible for the training of new staff; (b) management - to keep the recruitment budget at a sensible level and (c) our service users - to ensure a consistent quality of service.

It's tricky, really

I have heard it suggested that lots of outfits won't recruit over-qualified staff because they will just leave when something better comes up. If that is true it's stupid

Not stupid at all. Taking on a new employee is costly and disruptive. Last thing an employer needs is to go through it and then they leave a few months later and have the disruption of someone leaving and having to recruit again. Someone more suited to the job who's likely to stay longer is a far better option.

Kazzyhoward this is a really interesting perspective, thank-you for sharing it.

I have actually considered doing a different sort of work and am certainly open to it, but the only sort thing available at the moment near me is care work which involves doing nights/evenings and I can't commit to those hours for other reasons. Still keeping an eye out, though!

It's definitely a thing.

If you use your job title on your CV that could put off prospective employers, if they think it goes with a much higher salary.
Maybe include current salary and job description rather than title, so that the cut and change of responsibilities don't seem as drastic.

Of course it's real. The employer is looking for the 'best match' to the job, not necessarily the 'best qualified / most experienced' person.

They don't want people who will get bored or move on quickly, who are just using it as a stepping stone, or stop-gap. If you're serious about staying in a lower-grade job long-term, you need to make that really clear in your application.

IME employers often make all sorts of assumptions they shouldn't be making, about what jobs they believe you should be going for (even if such jobs don't exist), are likely to want to go for, whether they believe you really want their job or it will suit you.

You really need to work at pitching your application to the job. That's true with every job you apply for, of course. You cannot say 'here I am aren't I great, you know you want me, don't you?'. (Not suggesting you do this but I have seen it and it comes across so badly). You have to be thoughtful, relevant and sincere about why you are the right person for that particular job.

I've found applying for the level of job you're talking about, admin / clerical / junior technical, that don't require a degree, the most difficult to do, especially at interview. It's a very unfamiliar experience.

Like you, with a degree and formerly in a 'needs a degree' career, I find junior 'need a degree' jobs much, much easier to apply for, as, even if I need to focus my answers very differently than in interviews for more senior positions, they're on the same material. I'm reading from the 'junior abridged edition' but it's the same book. In non-degree interviews, I find it really hard not to sound off-puttingly and irrelevently managerial - or to overcompensate for that and not know how to sound interested and innovative within the parameters of the role.

Let me know when you've cracked it!

Always ask for feedback. It can be surprising but often it confirms exactly what you thought happened.

Definitely the case that the manager doesn't want someone, who's supposed to be cheerfully assisting, breathing down their neck, being critical or trying to take over. You'd need to do a lot of work at interview, to make sure you come across as someone happy to take direction and to make suggestions but only when wanted.

If you're serious about staying in a lower-grade job long-term, you need to make that really clear in your application

How do I do that though without sounding like I'm snubbing the job that I'm applying for? Or that I'm applying for it because I don't give a toss? I'm not sure how to word something like that.

'My current position is a busy, full time position which does not allow me the work life balance I would like. Whilst this position would still allow me to work in a busy environment (which I enjoy), due to the workplace location I feel that it would offer me a greater sense of work life balance, enabling me to work within the local community...')

Aka I'm sick of commuting and this is near me house.
I don't know how to be honest without it sounding a bit shit? I've not put anything like this on applications as I don't want to look like I'm basically saying 'well, I can ditch the commute and it's part time, so this will do' as that isn't the case, but that is how I would read it if I wete recruiting.

Excuse the typos, glasses are off! Back on now.

I have experienced this. After graduation I needed a job. I had DS1 to support and I was willing to do almost anything. I was turned down for lots of jobs. An agency told me they had nothing then my friend went in and was offered more than one opportunity. Eventually one employer said he would hire me usually but he knew that if something better came along I'd leave so it didn't make sense from his side, so it was regrettably a no. That's why I get a bit wound up when people accuse graduates of being too snooty to work in shops or restaurants. No, they won't have us.

It definitely is. I'm in a weird in-between zone where I'm "too" qualified for entry-level or just above entry-level admin jobs, but too inexperienced for more niche jobs. I'd be happy with either, but it's hard to convince people that I'd be a good fit for either one! It's very frustrating. I think some people don't realise that not everyone wants to progress to managing people, leading on complex projects, etc., and are happy to stay at the same level. I can get my personal/creative/intellectual fulfilment outside of work, and would rather do that than work really long hours in order to climb the ladder.

Linked to Kazzyhoward's experience. I work for an organisation that won't take on people who are more experienced than the role because, compared to others within the sector, the organisation is a bit rubbish. Senior management want employees who have little experience of how things could be done differently so that they just except that this organisation's practices are the norm for the sector and the management don't get challenged on how things could be different.

Living nearby is a real plus though. It enables you to be more reliable, as you won't get held up in traffic jams, train strikes etc. It's the sort of thing that perhaps employers shouldn't take into account, as your commute is your problem to solve, but they do and I've seen it happen both ways - a point in favour of someone within walking distance, concern about someone who'd have over an hour's commute on sometimes unreliable roads / trains.

How to pitch it? Well, I'm not the expert but I'd say something like; given your desire for a better work / life balance, and your awareness that local opportunities in your sector are limited, they'd be offering you a really rare and attractive opportunity to keep your hand in and to use your knowledge and skills to useful effect, without taking on all the responsibility of decision-making.

I suspect lots of managers get to a point where they lose sight of the reason they went into a field in the first place and actually, being able to return to the coal-face and do the job, without all those management reponsibilities, could be a real breath of fresh air. Many employers would recognise and believe that.

I've definitely experienced this. I was straight out of university when I applied for a receptionist/assistant job at a solicitor's firm. They told me they didn't want me because they thought I would move on very quickly and would get bored working there. Obviously I couldn't tell them I absolutely scraped by to get my degree due to a massive clinical depression, and only because I would have had to pay back thousands or euros otherwise! This was in the Netherlands, and my degree was in English. I really wished I had done an NVQ style education with work experience which, in hindsight, would have suited me much better.
Now that I've been out of work for about a decade, and currently a SAHM, I'm facing different problems regarding going back to work. I'm sure having a degree and no work experience for so long will give me the worst of both worlds when I start applying again! Besides, I don't even know what I want to be when I grow up

a point in favour of someone within walking distance, concern about someone who'd have over an hour's commute on sometimes unreliable roads / trains

Doesn't always work that way. When I had a 90 minute commute, there were days I got into work on time despite overnight snow etc. Local people phoned in for a day off, despite being just a few minutes away. We had various excuses, some genuine maybe, others just taking the piss. Potential genuine ones were where local buses had stopped running due to local problems, i.e. ungritted bus station, so "locals" couldn't get in, whilst people who drove from further away could because the main roads had been gritted. Or where people lived locally but in down remote country roads (barn conversions etc) with hills that hadn't been gritted. So in theory, local should be better, but in reality, often not.

Oh yes, there'll be particular local circumastences and employers will make their own assumptions but I'm saying it's not irrelevant.