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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.