9 to 5
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Would you interview for a job you are overqualified for?
I went on an interview last week and the director looks at my resume and tells me I am overqualified. I knew this going in, but in this tough economy, you have to try anything. I just feel frustrated because I am assuming he knew what my motives were by interviewing. I am just interested in knowing if the opportunity arises again, is it even worth it? I never thought the interview would become so slanted like that. I am just another person looking for a job in my field.
Re: Would you interview for a job you are overqualified for?
What were your motives? To put your name out there in case they have another opening later that fits your qualifications? Or to possibly take this job if it is offered to you?
If it's the former, it could be seen as a waste of their time. If you really have no intentions of taking a job you're overqualified for, I wouldn't keep interviewing for those positions.
However, if you know you're overqualified but are having trouble in this economy and would take an opportunity you do have some interest in, keep on going.
Just make it clear when they ask why you're interviewing if you're overqualified that you are very interested in this position and name the reasons why. You can also mention that this economy has made it tougher to find higher positions, but more than that I'd emphasize the things you are really interested in about this job that you can't find elsewhere, and that you'd like to start in this position and then seek growth opportunities.
How did you address it with him?
If I needed a job and it was something I thought I would enjoy doing, yes, I would interview.
Our little Irish rose came to us on March 5, 2010
Don't drink the water.
Disclaimer: I am not an MD. Please don't PM me with pregnancy-related questions. Ask your doctor.
I've interviewed and taken a job that I was overqualified for. I was surprised to get it. But the economy has been bad, I was laid off, and something was better than nothing considering the lack of jobs available.
I personally considered it a great stress reliever to not have to bust my @$$ all day, every day. I like what I do, but now I am ready to move on. I'm not bitter because the company has a high turnover rate and few opportunities for growth. A paycheck was better than unemployment.
This, exactly. In this economy, if you're going to be applying to jobs you're overqualified for, you almost need to downplay your qualifications... or better yet, have a good reason for explaining why you're interested in such a job. Almost any employer's biggest fear is putting a ton of resources into hiring someone, to just have them turn around and leave later. With the economy being so heavily in the hiring organization's favor, you'd think overqualified candidates would have a great advantage, but the reality is, employers are reluctant to hire someone they think will just turn around and leave once a better job presents itself.
Pretty much the best feedback I ever received during a job interview, was a year ago when I was interviewing for a position I was slightly underqualified for, and was up against direct competition who was slightly overqualified for the job. They ended up offering me the job because I seemed like the candiate that really wanted THIS job, whereas the other candidate seemed like she just wanted the job as a stepping stone to her next opportunity. They went with me even though I had less experience, because they figured I was in it for the long haul. Just a good reminder to always try to view yourself from the employer's point of view during an interview. Dont' focus on what you will get out of the job, but instead focus on what they want out of you.
D&C 11/14/11 - Goodbye, little June Bug
BFP #2 8/22/12 | EDD 5/5/13 | Good betas 8/22 & 8/25 | strong heartbeat 9/17/12 @7w1d
Perfect A/S 12/11/12 @ 19w2d - it's a BOY!
our blog
PGAL March siggy challenge - Pet shaming.
I now completely get the concern about overqualifed applicants.
About 4 months ago I hired a new assistant who was over educated for the position. I was told she would be pursuing additional education (master's degree) in two years after her husband graduated and then she would be seeking a higher position. Turns out she continued to interview and let me know she would be taking another position, now.
I spent time training her on the position and the company, and even passed on another candidate because this person fit well with the rest of the office. There is also another aspect to training a new employee most people don't realize. I am a salaried employee and my work week went from about 45 hours per week to over 60 for the first two months and has been average 50 hours per week the last two months so I could train her and still get my job done but I continued to get the same pay--it takes between 3 and 6 months before someone is completely trained on how to do the job.
I would have still considered her for the job but I might have implemented a job-sharing option with her and the other candidate (something management had discussed) and the company would have been in a much better position when she decided to take this new job.
As it stands, those are 4 months I would have spent differently, will now have to spend more time finding a replacement, spend another 3 to 6 months training someone from the beginning, and I anticipate I will not be back to my regular work schedule until after the first of the year.