Hi everyone,

I'm looking for a part-time job (2-3 days a week) in Sheffield. had an interview last week, and just had a call back from the very nice lady who was in charge of the panel. She said that I gave a "faultless" and "intelligent" interview, that I seemed a nice person, and that the only reason I wasn't being employed was that I am "overqualified" for the job and "too good" for it. In their opinion, she added, I would be "bored" by the day-to-day routine of life in admin.

I feel really annoyed. I desperately wanted this job, and I did my absolute best in the interview. When I came out, I had really positive vibes about it. Is it really the role of the employer to make that decision about what does and doesn't interest me as a job? Surely that's my business? The implicit (and somewhat patronizing) suggestion seems to be that I didn't really know what I was doing when I spent 3 hours filling in the application form and another 3 hours preparing for the interview!! Plus, I've already proved the fact that I can "hack it" in admin, by working as a PA for a whole year (and I know my current employer likes my work - she told me she gave me the best possible references.) How much more "proving" of myself do I need to do?

I can see why some snobby people might see me as overqualified for this job, but I'm not so arrogant as to think that because I have very good academics, I'm better than other people. I actually want to do something relatively routine a couple of days a week, because I need time and energy for have other commitments outside of work (I'm writing a novel and looking after sick relatives).

Is this discrimination or what? I am really upset - I wouldn't have minded if I wasn't the best candidate in the field, because there can always be someone with more experience/ better qualifications, but to be told that I am unemployable because I am too good and too nice makes me feel so depressed and down.

GRRRRRRR! Any advice greatly appreciated.

I know how you feel! I remember applying for loads of jobs and getting kocked back as I was too qualified. Some companies think that you are only applying as a stop gap and think that you'll leave as soon as a better job comes along. Recruiting costs companies loads of money so they want to employ somoene they know will stay the course. The alternative view is that they want to employ someone who they can control, i.e. someone who will do as they say and not object to anything. I got into 'trouble' in one of my last jobs for objecting to doing work as I believed it wasn't safe. I reported the issue and was promptly told by my boss I was not in a position of authority to raise issues like that!! Basically if that the companies response to you then they're not worth worrying about, something else will come along.

I will be applying for jobs soon, I hope this doesnt happen to me. (Nearly finished my PhD)

Co-incidently has anyone found that companies will religously follow aptitude tests as an indication of whether would be good at the job or not?

From experience I went for a job a couple of years ago that I really really wanted, it was a graduate training scheme, and offered good opportunities that I thought would stretch myself and keep me interested. I was turned down for the position.

The feedback given was, excellent presentation, excellent interview. However because I had failed to meet the minimum requirements on the numerical test they felt they couldn't give me the position. The fact that I have an A in Maths and B in Further Maths at A-Level and a 2.1 Hons in Mathematics at degree made no difference.

This really upset me as I really wanted the job, and I am one of those people just not cut out for aptitude tests.

However I intend to purchase some books from amazon for example tests and see if I can improve in the tests.

Originally posted by Skatiechik
I will be applying for jobs soon, I hope this doesnt happen to me. (Nearly finished my PhD)

Co-incidently has anyone found that companies will religously follow aptitude tests as an indication of whether would be good at the job or not?

From experience I went for a job a couple of years ago that I really really wanted, it was a graduate training scheme, and offered good opportunities that I thought would stretch myself and keep me interested. I was turned down for the position.

The feedback given was, excellent presentation, excellent interview. However because I had failed to meet the minimum requirements on the numerical test they felt they couldn't give me the position. The fact that I have an A in Maths and B in Further Maths at A-Level and a 2.1 Hons in Mathematics at degree made no difference.

This really upset me as I really wanted the job, and I am one of those people just not cut out for aptitude tests.

However I intend to purchase some books from amazon for example tests and see if I can improve in the tests.

How could you have all those qualifications in maths and yet fail to meet the minimum requirements on the numeracy test? This isn't indicative of what is called 'dumbing down' in education is it? :confused:

Just doesn't seem to make sense to me!

Hi Skatiechik!

Don't worry about it. Unfortunately, there are still some idiots out there who use psychometric testing when recruiting, but it's becoming less common I think. In my experience, so-called "aptitude tests" have very little to do with intelligence! For a start, you can get better with practice. My friend went for fast track civil service and did every aptitude test book under the sun to get in. His rating improved from average to brilliant over 6 months, simply because he was getting used to thinking in the right kind of way to pass these tests. Was he exponentially more intelligent at the end of that training than at the beginning? Of course not.

I bet you are a better mathematician than me by MILES. But I get good scores on IQ tests simply because I'm the sort of person who likes doing meaningless puzzles in my head while I'm waiting for buses. Just because you can do long division in your head, or work out the rotation of a particular shape through 3 dimensions, doesn't make you clever, or a good manager, or a good problem-solver, or even a decent mathematician.

I also have a PhD, which cost me years of hard work and intensive study. I know that it tested my brain in ways that no silly little puzzle set by MENSA ever could! In my view, it's not the formal qualifications but the IQ tests that demonstrate a "dumbed down" and trivialized approach to education - they only measure the unimportant.

hiya
as someone who recruits frequently to a whole host of different posts I think this kind of bias happens frequently and Im probably guilty of it myself.
Although recruiting panels dont "know" you our concerns (and real concerns talking from experience) are that people who are "better qualified" tend to get their experience and move on. This can represent significant costs to an organisation in terms of re-training staff etc.
Just my opinion from the other side of the table ...

it's a real concern for an organisation. If they give you the job and you get bored with after 3 months and move onto something better (as you clearly could if you're such a good candidate) then they've just wasted 3 months of training and all the money put into the recruitement process.

It's probably too late now, but explaining why you were looking for that sort of job despite your qualifications might have put their mind at rest.

Psychometrics are a better indicator of ability than an interview alone, although you'd think that sensible recruitement would allow for a degree of flexibility. On the other hand, by not sticking to their own guidelines they would probably be opening themselves up to legal problems...

I totally understand the concern that overqualified people might leave jobs. But why not express that concern to them directly, and see what they say in response?

To presume that "overqualified" people are especially likely to quit is as unfair as saying that women are likely to quit because they might have kids. If someone is there in front of you, and has made the effort to fill in the application forms and turn up for interview, and they seem intelligent and well qualified, why not assume that they know what they are doing instead of making the patronising and paternalistic assumption that you know their lives better than they do?

I do a great job as a secretary (if I do say so myself!!) and I've proved that I can stick at an admin job by keeping my current
job as a PA for a year. I made sure that the panel knew that I was only moving away from my current position because my partner's job is being relocated. There are no excuses for my interviewers. They have behaved in a really bigoted way. Please- if you are in a situation where you are responsible for hiring people, think twice before you discriminate against someone on the grounds of overqualification. They might have a lot happening in their life that you are not aware of, and you might just be turning down someone who will be incredibly bright, cheery and very loyal to you.

As someone who has experienced recruitment from both sides of the table I feel able to give a view (and also have a rant). In the public sector (where I worked for many years) fairly strict employment policies and procedures are in place and equal opportunities should and do apply. In short an interviewer cannot make that open judgement about whether a job is beneath you, citing possible boredom as a reason. You are the candidate and its your business whether you want to apply. If you meet the selection criteria that's what should concern them. I find fairly nebulous excuses about you possibly moving on after a short time unacceptable and an insult.
I have recently experienced an interview in the private sector and come across the same attitude of "Is this job beneath you given your qualifications and experience?" Perhaps it is my age but I was confident enough to challenge that view. Assertive rather than rude I explained why I was applying and that it was my choice. On this occasion it worked and I was offered the post.
After doing countless interviews with a variety of colleagues and panels I have come to the conclusion that too little importance is given to interviews. Many interviewers see it as a battle, an ordeal for the interviewee to endure. Sadly too often little emphasis is given to finding out about the real person before the panel.
My only advice is to stick at it, be honest and accept that those prospective employers who ultimately do offer the post are indeed the ones who you will really want to work for.
Good luck in your job search.
:)

Wow, great post grandadtee! I totally agree with you.

This job was in the public sector, but not national or local civil service, who seem to have far higher standards of fairness than some other "public" institutions (which can have a bit of a backward mentality). Next time, I will take your advice (and Cyclone's) and be a bit more firm and assertive about why I am right for the job. Thanks guys - I feel like I have a practical strategy for dealing with it now!

Has it occurred to you that it may be your potential boss who's the problem? ;)

If you are more qualifed and more capable, once your circumstances change and you're looking for full time work again, you may pose a threat to them (in their eyes) :rolleyes:

I accepted a redundancy package last December having worked solidly for the last 29 years. I decided I deserved a break and made a concious descision not to seek work for a few months. Now I am looking again, I cannot even get an interview for the type of job I am looking for, despite many years of management experience in computer and telecommunications support. I was fortunate to be on a relatively high salary in my last job and this now seems to count against me and scares off potential employers even though I am not particularly looking for a job with the same level of salary. It is very frustrating.

Originally posted by Cyclone
it's a real concern for an organisation. If they give you the job and you get bored with after 3 months and move onto something better (as you clearly could if you're such a good candidate) then they've just wasted 3 months of training and all the money put into the recruitement process.

It's probably too late now, but explaining why you were looking for that sort of job despite your qualifications might have put their mind at rest.

Psychometrics are a better indicator of ability than an interview alone, although you'd think that sensible recruitement would allow for a degree of flexibility. On the other hand, by not sticking to their own guidelines they would probably be opening themselves up to legal problems...

I have to agree with Cyclone here,

It has happened tome in the past a couple of times and further down the line i have had to decline applications for the same reasons.

In the long run they may have done you a favour because if you say you wouldn't have been bored then you would have been trapped in a job and you could have done better.
An employers stance would be that it is a huge risk for them to recruit you for you to be dissatisfied and leave, causing them an expense and time.

Originally posted by drolnhoj
I accepted a redundancy package last December having worked solidly for the last 29 years. I decided I deserved a break and made a concious descision not to seek work for a few months. Now I am looking again, I cannot even get an interview for the type of job I am looking for, despite many years of management experience in computer and telecommunications support. I was fortunate to be on a relatively high salary in my last job and this now seems to count against me and scares off potential employers even though I am not particularly looking for a job with the same level of salary. It is very frustrating.

if it is just the previous high salary that's putting them off, don't mention it, put on your cv what you expect instead of what you used to get.

Originally posted by Cyclone
if it is just the previous high salary that's putting them off, don't mention it, put on your cv what you expect instead of what you used to get.

Thanks for the advice. Where possible I will do that, but many of the jobs I apply for request the actual salary of your last job and that can be a problem.

Originally posted by drolnhoj
Thanks for the advice. Where possible I will do that, but many of the jobs I apply for request the actual salary of your last job and that can be a problem.

I guess you could always write "in excess of £x [where x = the salary of the job you're going for] but my personal circumstances have changed and I am now looking for x". Or something similar. You could explain this by saying (in the interview) that yes, the last job was very lucrative, but the flip side was that you never got to see your family, so you're now going for a position which is more of a 9 - 5 (if that's the case) so you're happy with a correspondingly-lower salary.

Obviously, others on the thread will be happy to correct my suggestion! :)

When I came out of nursing, I went after a job as a vet nurse - the perfect job for me since I could not go to uni to be a vet. I was turned down for the job, not because I was over qualified but because the vet thought I had an over-romanticised view of the job. He was at pains to explain to me that I would have to muck out cages and hump heavy animals around. No idea what he thought I had been doing as a nurse - presumably wandering about with a lamp and soothing fevered brows!

Originally posted by drolnhoj
Thanks for the advice. Where possible I will do that, but many of the jobs I apply for request the actual salary of your last job and that can be a problem.

Salary is always a problem with CVs & application forms. Generally I take the view it is only crucial when a hiring decision is imminent and can be used to screen out applicants.

If I am very keen on the post in question, I usually only give a ball park figure of what seems reasonable for the job, my experience and suitability for the appointment in question.

As you've been out of the labour market for a while, I'd be inclined to put something like: "Salary Range: £x1 - £x2" where £x1= the mid-range of what you think future employers will want to pay and £x2=last actual salary. If you think £x2 is still too high you could put entry salary for your last post and then you cant be accused of lying.

Originally posted by d1zzyw1zzy
Hi everyone,

I'm looking for a part-time job (2-3 days a week) in Sheffield. had an interview last week, and just had a call back from the very nice lady who was in charge of the panel. She said that I gave a "faultless" and "intelligent" interview, that I seemed a nice person, and that the only reason I wasn't being employed was that I am "overqualified" for the job and "too good" for it. In their opinion, she added, I would be "bored" by the day-to-day routine of life in admin.

I feel really annoyed. I desperately wanted this job, and I did my absolute best in the interview. When I came out, I had really positive vibes about it. Is it really the role of the employer to make that decision about what does and doesn't interest me as a job? Surely that's my business? The implicit (and somewhat patronizing) suggestion seems to be that I didn't really know what I was doing when I spent 3 hours filling in the application form and another 3 hours preparing for the interview!! Plus, I've already proved the fact that I can "hack it" in admin, by working as a PA for a whole year (and I know my current employer likes my work - she told me she gave me the best possible references.) How much more "proving" of myself do I need to do?

I can see why some snobby people might see me as overqualified for this job, but I'm not so arrogant as to think that because I have very good academics, I'm better than other people. I actually want to do something relatively routine a couple of days a week, because I need time and energy for have other commitments outside of work (I'm writing a novel and looking after sick relatives).

Is this discrimination or what? I am really upset - I wouldn't have minded if I wasn't the best candidate in the field, because there can always be someone with more experience/ better qualifications, but to be told that I am unemployable because I am too good and too nice makes me feel so depressed and down.

GRRRRRRR! Any advice greatly appreciated.

To my mind if the job was right for you they would have offered you the job regardless of what they thought. That they didnt offer you the job is because it was not right for you and not that you were not right for them.

It is also entirely possible they feel intimidated by your superior skills/experience and needed to find excuses. I wouldnt be surprised to learn they had decided not to employ you, looked for an excuse and because you performed so brilliantly they had to find other reasons.

None of this means that there is anything wrong with you or how you conducted yourself.

I'm sure you'll get what you want with perseverance.