Hacker News Reader

Comment by CPLX | Hacker News Reader

As someone that's hired a lot of people being overqualified is an actual reason not to want to hire an applicant. The reason is because they are not likely to last in the position. Not every company is some high growth engineering phenomenon. Sometimes you need someone to fill a specific role and you'd like them to be stable in that role.

View on HN

In which case the applicant's employment history would be a lot more relevant. As in, have they been job-hopping, historically "not-lasting" at a job? or do they commit to their work and see it through. If you're offering a decent job and pay fairly, there's no reason to assume an applicant will simply "not last" only because of them being "over-qualified", whatever that means.

I’ve personally applied for jobs I’ve been overqualified for with the intent of getting in the door and moving out of that position as fast as possible. That might be good for me, and good for the hiring organization, but I totally understand the hiring manager blowing me off, because I wouldn’t be filling his need, and in a couple months he’s back to sorting through resumes and doing interviews.

and in a couple months he’s back to sorting through resumes and doing interviews

So you're saying this person would...be doing their job like normal?

A candidate that lasts under 6 months is a very bad candidate that has cost the company money (for a technical position, that is).

It's in the interest of both the candidate and the company not to make such a match.

If it was only the resume-sorting part, it wouldn't be a problem, but it's also all the work spent training the candidate.

No, sorry. The issue is that a job that pays fairly for the position doesn’t feel fair to someone who is settling until they get the job they really want. That kind of person really is likely to leave quickly. Whether it’s worth hiring someone who wants to leave immediately depends on how quickly the company can get new hires up to speed and how much effort they put into interviewing.

Now, a company can define overqualified incorrectly. And they can misjudge the cost of a temporary hire. But people really do apply for jobs they think are beneath them until they get an offer.

I disagree, and feel as I mentioned that they candidate's history is more relevant than their age and a non-defined over-qualification. In any case, when that's a worry, bring it up as a concern during the hiring process, work it out with the candidate. Now I cannot deny it happens, as demonstrated by @WillPostForFood in this sub-thread, but that does not mean everybody, not even most candidates think along the same lines. A lot just want an honest job that pays fairly, and as I stated originally, their history would likely be more telling in that regard.

Overqualification is judged based on job history, though. Unfortunately, having a lot of experience is correlated with age.

I completely agree it should be discussed during the interview, but I don’t think that will always work out for the job candidate.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com