Stuck in the Middle: don't tell me I'm overqualified! (I'll get angry)

6 October 2009

5 minute read

Stuck in the Middle: don't tell me I'm overqualified! (I'll get angry)

In the latest of his regular "Stuck in the Middle" series, our mid-level candidate columnist tells us why he's sick and tired of the "overqualified" tag. If you haven't read his other articles, please click here and here.

This month I'd like to cover the problem of being over qualified. This issue is vexing me no end and I believe it has primarily arisen due to a dearth of mid-level positions in the financial sector. It is with ever increasing pessimism that I wonder if people in my 30-to-40 age bracket are even employable at the moment.

In a nutshell, it seems that the generation above mine (40+) is in charge of all the hiring and firing, whilst us 30-somethings are fighting for job survival, or, as is my case, are simply out of work.

The flip side is that there are roles for people at a more junior level, but these are inaccessible if you have closer to 10 years' work experience.

It's the salaries, stupid

Before I go on, I'd also like to raise my suspicions about why this is the case. I don't think banks are actually looking for less experienced or less qualified people, I honestly think it all comes down to wages.

They simply don't want to pay mid-level salaries, so they are recruiting younger, more inexperienced staff (or the opposite - people with enormous amounts of experience, or with large client books).

For the record, I have nine years' experience under my belt, plus 1.5 degrees (I'm halfway through my masters) and a professional qualification (that took two years' industry experience and additional exams to achieve).

In my view, this is pretty standard, and really the minimum of what you need to be successful. I'll be honest in saying that my first four to five years was really spent learning the ropes, while the last four have been spent moving up the corporate ladder.

What really makes me mad

Now, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but it would appear that mid-level, reasonably paid staff have taken the brunt of recent redundancies. While I don't have a problem with this (probably because I wasn't actually made redundant), I find it particularly annoying when I apply for positions only to be told that I'm "over qualified".

Seriously, it simply seems like bad luck that I was born eight years too late - otherwise I'd probably be the one doing the hiring and firing. But the worst part is that it seems this is being held against me, particularly by agency recruiters.

Too often when applying for a role I hear the words "over qualified". Sure, I have tried to dumb down my CV, but even then it becomes pretty apparent that I know "more than I should" for the role. It doesn't take a genius to look through a CV, string some dates together (from finishing university to your last role), and then work out "where you should be" in terms of your career.

So, at my age, you seem to be faced with two outcomes: you are either overqualified, or are so bad at your job that you've probably never been promoted. Hardly a win-win situation!

No solution

All in all, I can't figure out a way to get around this issue. Sure you can offer to work for half what people of your skill-level are being paid (and no doubt you'll probably work harder than them too for fear of again being unemployed). But nobody seems to want to hear that.

Recently I tried telling a recruiter that it didn't matter about the money, or really even the role, so long as the firm was the right fit and offered longer-term career opportunities. If I can do the job with my eyes closed, and also have something to offer the firm in terms of helping it to move forward, then surely I would be a good asset to have?

Alas, I was told "we're not going to put you forward because we suspect that as soon as the markets improve you will leave and move onto bigger and better things".

Okay, I appreciate firms dislike being used as a "stepping stone", but honestly, if the business is well run and offers the right fit personally, then surely they are better off hiring someone who can actually do the job, rather than taking a punt on someone younger?

I'd also like to add that, after several years with a firm, if you are still doing exactly the same job, with no scope for career progression, then you'll probably leave anyway (whether you're aged 25 or 32).

So here I remain, aged 31, six months after returning from London, and still trying to find a firm that actual wants to hire smart, well qualified 30-somethings.

AUTHORAnonymous

Insider Comment

he
henk
25 February 2010
Human Resources are the most most useless people on the face of the Earth. They are so blinkered and can't see the wood for the trees. consider this question: why are they reticent about hiring candidates who are over-qualified, on the basis they may leave when a better position arises (inidentally, isn't anyone who receives a better offer going to move on ?); yet have no qualms about hiring a woman who shortly after falls pregnant, and then goes on paid maternity leave for 12 months, then have to find someone suitable to replace her - only for 12 months, go to all the trouble and expense of training them up for this short time period ? Or employ women with kids when they will invariably phone in and say they can't come in that day because their child is sick?
I know people will say I am living in the dark ages, but even I know that jobs for life don't exist anymore, so why do HR officers have a fear about "over-qualified" moving on?
Human Resources officers, for these aforementioned reasons, need a reality check.
Reply
Pe
Pete
18 November 2009
I will be 30 years old when i finish my diploma in Bachelor of Business and Commerce.
Will i be considerd me too old for a postgraduate?
Reply
Tr
Trevor Myers
22 October 2009
For those who say that you can get a job if you really try they should try being mid fifties with three times more experience and qualifications to match and yet be told exactly the same story. I have been unemployed for almost 20 months and only manged to score 2 interviews despite having sent off over 1000 applications for every type of job available.Mostly you don't even hear from either the prospective employer or recruiter. Most recruiters are too young to understand what experience of knowledge I have to be of any assistance. I too am stuck with nowhere to go and a mortgage about to collapse.
Reply
de
denker12
9 October 2009
I think its likely plain wrong pointing to any particular segment of the current labour force, and to recriminate against it, for wont of your own situation. My profile closely approximates Dandydon with as much experience as he does and I agree with his assessment, ( & I have twice the number of degrees you have - including the completed other side to your 0.5 masters).Take a broader perspective - the banking and financial sector does not know what its own future is. The risk assessments it applied to its investments and also to itself are clearly in question - and will need review, and hence they are adopting caution and prudence through this transitory(?) period. A period defined by extraordinary yet unsustainable government support.What will happen when governments find that the banks are not only too big to let fail, but simply way too big to support at all? Your most serious error could be if you anticipate that this is 'just another cyclical adjustment' and soon the financial sector will be steaming along as ever before, i.e. with little regard for credit risk, and pursuing each asset for the next micro / paper thinwhile the Fed's Rumpelstiltskins spin straw..
Reply
Ma
Marc
9 October 2009
I agree with the poster that suggested temp work, we have just had 2 maternity covers filled and i know that if a vacant role comes up that those temps are most likely to get the role.
Reply