I was hiring for an entry level position a few months ago. Service desk type work. I either got people who were fabricating their CV to get an interview or insanely over qualified. It took a LONG time to hire the right guy.
At no point did I ever think, gee I wonder if I can get AI to read these CVs or do the interview for me. Christ knows what I would have ended up with.
They typically won’t take the job or won’t like the job. You don’t want to hire someone for a position if they don’t actually want that specific position, because there’s a reason that’s the vacancy. Both candidate and HR have to judge if it fits
People applying for jobs below their experience level have likely already tried applying for jobs at their own experience level (if they’re hiring at all) and run into stupid recruiters demanding way too much for the position. Unless it’s an extreme disparity, just let them. I’ve spent a lot longer unemployed than I would’ve if recruiters like that just offered me something, and avoiding growing debt is more motivating at that point than you might think.
Could be that, but that would also be legitimate, wouldn’t it? And it could also mean it’s not the right fit, or the candidate will pursue a different offer, or leave soon, or want a different position soon, or all kinds of other problems.
Hiring is about more than just “can they do it”. That’s the issue. HR isn’t trying to fuck you over. They want the best fit and that isn’t necessarily the most qualified candidate.
Now you are changing the criteria to add in more things to “fit”.
Imagine we have the perfect candidate for a job under all measures, except they have a masters (or PHD) instead of a bachelors. A rejection in that case is stupid.
That’s not how it goes. You’d hire the perfect candidate under all measures. So that’s a silly hypothetical. But maybe they have another candidate where the risk is much lower of them leaving after investing training effort, or of them getting bored or finding a job elsewhere more suited to their capabilities, then it makes sense not to hire the overqualified candidate. It’s not usually this one thing, unless early on in the process and they have loads of candidates. And again, “too expensive” is also a legitimate reason not to hire someone.
That’s the excuse they give yes. But given the current job market and the fact that the person is applying for the job, they may not like the job but they’re probably not going to be able to find anything better so there is little risk to the company.
The real reason they don’t want to hire over qualified people is because they’re likely to raise up in the ranks and become a problem for the recruiters themselves. Has anyone ever met a genuinely competent HR person?
The real reason from what I’ve heard is that people will apply for any job, yes, but they’ll also leave right away once they find a better job. So for HR to hire somebody overqualified, they have to really be desperate.
I mean HR has to be desperate, not the job seeker.
HR people would hire them, were it not for the experience of these people leaving the moment there’s a better job.
Overqualified is a proxy for how likely are they to stay in the position long enough to make it worth hiring them.
For high turnover roles, like entry level retail or restaurants, there is no problem hiring someone overqualified; when they leave in 3-6 months, that’s par for the course, the business is always having to hire replacements.
But for knowledge jobs where it takes a few months just to get someone up to speed, you can see why hiring managers want to avoid hiring someone who is likely to leave soon.
You want to tell developers from mass layoffs trying to pay rent that they would be ‘bored’ in a lower paying job? Or they are effectively blacklisted for being ‘overqualified’ in a slop addicted job market that refuses to pay for that expertise?
Excuse me but fuck all that. HR can absolutely make it clear if there is no-expectation of upward movement or pay increase for the job. Sure HR can and should give lesser experienced applicants a chance if they meet the criteria, but outright denying one based on being ‘over-qualified’ is, and always has been, bullshit.
This is why I always lie. I’m being offered no incentive to give them a truthful representation of my job history, so I don’t.
If you’re over qualified for a position just pretend that you worked at Tesco’s the entire time of your previous job. It’s not like they check this stuff, and anyway places like that have such turnover but no one will be able to actually prove you didn’t work there without going through all the paperwork, and the teenage manager isn’t going to bother to do that.
But some places actually do background checks and will rescind your employment if you lied about your job history. My current employer required tax stubs going back like 8 years. And this is a private sector employer as well.
Do you work in a nuclear power station or something, there was absolutely no legitimate reason for them to check back that far.
Also remember this is like entry grade low level jobs like shelf stacking or something. If you’re applying for something more advanced you don’t need to lie. This is just make sure they don’t reject you for being over qualified.
I didn’t want to hurt your feelings. I explained the situation coming from the other side.
HR or the department are looking for longtime employees. Since everyone has to be trained to the company standards etc. This takes sometimes years. Time and energy which is “wasted” when the employee leaves right when they become self reliant.
Nobody is working in an underqualified and underpaid job for years.
I’m as frustrated with this job market as anyone but let’s be realistic. Filling a role takes a lot of time and energy. Nobody involved in the process wants to repeat it in a few weeks or months. They have every incentive not to waste time with applicants that have any reason not to stick around.
Isn’t it remotely concerning to you that you are getting people who are over qualified for a job? Even if you don’t use AI to interview people everyone else is using AI to interview people or straight up replacing people with AI.
I think we’re finished either way.
You never know though, maybe the government will grow a brain and come up with universal income.
If governments do UBI, capitalists will just raise prices by that amount and people will still be struggling the same. What we really need is for the people to grow a brain and do a socialist revolution.
I was hiring for an entry level position a few months ago. Service desk type work. I either got people who were fabricating their CV to get an interview or insanely over qualified. It took a LONG time to hire the right guy.
At no point did I ever think, gee I wonder if I can get AI to read these CVs or do the interview for me. Christ knows what I would have ended up with.
overqualified is the fucking stupidest hr shit ever
They typically won’t take the job or won’t like the job. You don’t want to hire someone for a position if they don’t actually want that specific position, because there’s a reason that’s the vacancy. Both candidate and HR have to judge if it fits
People applying for jobs below their experience level have likely already tried applying for jobs at their own experience level (if they’re hiring at all) and run into stupid recruiters demanding way too much for the position. Unless it’s an extreme disparity, just let them. I’ve spent a lot longer unemployed than I would’ve if recruiters like that just offered me something, and avoiding growing debt is more motivating at that point than you might think.
No. Overqualified is bullshit.
What HR mean is salary expectations are too high.
Could be that, but that would also be legitimate, wouldn’t it? And it could also mean it’s not the right fit, or the candidate will pursue a different offer, or leave soon, or want a different position soon, or all kinds of other problems.
If the salary is wrong they will move, but having additional skills doesn’t interfere with one skill being employed.
Hiring is about more than just “can they do it”. That’s the issue. HR isn’t trying to fuck you over. They want the best fit and that isn’t necessarily the most qualified candidate.
Now you are changing the criteria to add in more things to “fit”.
Imagine we have the perfect candidate for a job under all measures, except they have a masters (or PHD) instead of a bachelors. A rejection in that case is stupid.
Overqualified is just code for “too expensive”.
That’s not how it goes. You’d hire the perfect candidate under all measures. So that’s a silly hypothetical. But maybe they have another candidate where the risk is much lower of them leaving after investing training effort, or of them getting bored or finding a job elsewhere more suited to their capabilities, then it makes sense not to hire the overqualified candidate. It’s not usually this one thing, unless early on in the process and they have loads of candidates. And again, “too expensive” is also a legitimate reason not to hire someone.
That’s the excuse they give yes. But given the current job market and the fact that the person is applying for the job, they may not like the job but they’re probably not going to be able to find anything better so there is little risk to the company.
The real reason they don’t want to hire over qualified people is because they’re likely to raise up in the ranks and become a problem for the recruiters themselves. Has anyone ever met a genuinely competent HR person?
The real reason from what I’ve heard is that people will apply for any job, yes, but they’ll also leave right away once they find a better job. So for HR to hire somebody overqualified, they have to really be desperate.
Overqualified people apply for lower jobs BECAUSE there’s nothing better to leave for at the moment (with exceptions)
I mean HR has to be desperate, not the job seeker.
HR people would hire them, were it not for the experience of these people leaving the moment there’s a better job.
Overqualified is a proxy for how likely are they to stay in the position long enough to make it worth hiring them.
For high turnover roles, like entry level retail or restaurants, there is no problem hiring someone overqualified; when they leave in 3-6 months, that’s par for the course, the business is always having to hire replacements.
But for knowledge jobs where it takes a few months just to get someone up to speed, you can see why hiring managers want to avoid hiring someone who is likely to leave soon.
Not really. You don‘t want people get bored at their job. That comes with a lot of other problems if this happens.
Payment is according to the job level not according to the qualification.
You want to tell developers from mass layoffs trying to pay rent that they would be ‘bored’ in a lower paying job? Or they are effectively blacklisted for being ‘overqualified’ in a slop addicted job market that refuses to pay for that expertise?
Excuse me but fuck all that. HR can absolutely make it clear if there is no-expectation of upward movement or pay increase for the job. Sure HR can and should give lesser experienced applicants a chance if they meet the criteria, but outright denying one based on being ‘over-qualified’ is, and always has been, bullshit.
This is why I always lie. I’m being offered no incentive to give them a truthful representation of my job history, so I don’t.
If you’re over qualified for a position just pretend that you worked at Tesco’s the entire time of your previous job. It’s not like they check this stuff, and anyway places like that have such turnover but no one will be able to actually prove you didn’t work there without going through all the paperwork, and the teenage manager isn’t going to bother to do that.
But some places actually do background checks and will rescind your employment if you lied about your job history. My current employer required tax stubs going back like 8 years. And this is a private sector employer as well.
Do you work in a nuclear power station or something, there was absolutely no legitimate reason for them to check back that far.
Also remember this is like entry grade low level jobs like shelf stacking or something. If you’re applying for something more advanced you don’t need to lie. This is just make sure they don’t reject you for being over qualified.
Nope it’s just a software company. It was intrusive but worth it to make a lot of money working from home.
And yeah plenty of jobs won’t check. I’m just saying that some will.
I didn’t want to hurt your feelings. I explained the situation coming from the other side.
HR or the department are looking for longtime employees. Since everyone has to be trained to the company standards etc. This takes sometimes years. Time and energy which is “wasted” when the employee leaves right when they become self reliant.
Nobody is working in an underqualified and underpaid job for years.
I’m as frustrated with this job market as anyone but let’s be realistic. Filling a role takes a lot of time and energy. Nobody involved in the process wants to repeat it in a few weeks or months. They have every incentive not to waste time with applicants that have any reason not to stick around.
Isn’t it remotely concerning to you that you are getting people who are over qualified for a job? Even if you don’t use AI to interview people everyone else is using AI to interview people or straight up replacing people with AI.
I think we’re finished either way.
You never know though, maybe the government will grow a brain and come up with universal income.
If governments do UBI, capitalists will just raise prices by that amount and people will still be struggling the same. What we really need is for the people to grow a brain and do a socialist revolution.