• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Work for your dole money...

Not wishing to offend anybody in this thread, but I'd like to open up another debate.

Surely it is up to the interviewee to present their CV and work history in a way that would make them attractive to a prospective employer.

Similarly, during interview, it would be prudent to talk about aspects of your previous employment that a new employer would find useful. Rather than bleating on about work or experience you have that has no relevance to the role you are applying for.

The argument "I didn't get the job because I was over qualified" doesn't seem logical.

Not getting a job you are more than qualified to do indicates you fudged the interview process. Not the other way around.
 
Over qualified is just another way if saying 'I'm too good for that job' surely?

If you've got all the a levels under the sun I get that you might not want to work in McDonald's but it still strikes me as looking down on the 'minions'
 
Over qualified is just another way if saying 'I'm too good for that job' surely?

If you've got all the a levels under the sun I get that you might not want to work in McDonald's but it still strikes me as looking down on the 'minions'


Have been applying for shop work. I have a physics degree, employers tell me they do not want me because they do not expect me to stay there for a long enough period.

They're perfectly right, getting a job there won't stop me applying for something better. And if something better comes up i would jump at the chance. They would much prefer to hire someone who is going to be there longer term.

Therefore they deem me 'overqualified'.
 
Have been applying for shop work. I have a physics degree, employers tell me they do not want me because they do not expect me to stay there for a long enough period.

They're perfectly right, getting a job there won't stop me applying for something better. And if something better comes up i would jump at the chance. They would much prefer to hire someone who is going to be there longer term.

Therefore they deem me 'overqualified'.

They can't discriminate against you on the basis that you 'might leave'?!?!!!

Everyone is in the same boat that they'd leave for more wonga!!
 
They can't discriminate against you on the basis that you 'might leave'?!?!!!

Everyone is in the same boat that they'd leave for more wonga!!


They can discriminate against you on whatever basis they want, that's the whole point of an interview process.


Everyone would be in the same boat, however is someone with a degree or somebody with 5 GCSE's more likely to get a better job?
 
Not wishing to offend anybody in this thread, but I'd like to open up another debate.

Surely it is up to the interviewee to present their CV and work history in a way that would make them attractive to a prospective employer.

Similarly, during interview, it would be prudent to talk about aspects of your previous employment that a new employer would find useful. Rather than bleating on about work or experience you have that has no relevance to the role you are applying for.

The argument "I didn't get the job because I was over qualified" doesn't seem logical.

Not getting a job you are more than qualified to do indicates you fudged the interview process. Not the other way around.

I reached a reasonably senior grade as a technical sales account manager/director, and worked for 3 years as sales director for an SME. In the last recesssion my company went under, too much money borrowed, not enough long term income etc etc

My CV looked pretty good, but I was competing with an awful lot of people for the jobs that I was qualified for, and consistently got through to final interview stage. After a while it started to dawn on me that my age was starting to become a major problem - telecomms doesn't want short, fat, ugly old men selling its products, irrespective of track record or experience, because its not the right image. They can't discriminate in the adverts, but your Cv gives your age away - even if you don't include it, because of the year you started work.

So you apply for lesser jobs, that mean a step down in pay, because you would rather work, than sit and "waste air"

You go for interviews where you are face to face with your manager to be, who looks at your CV, which is probably a lot more impressive than his.

Will he/she take you on? and risk being made to look green or a lesser professional than you? They ask, what are your ambitions (your job obviously) so you lie, and they know you are lying. And then they take someone younger and less threatening.

Now you can't get the jobs that you can do, but will take you forward, and you can't get the jobs you can do with your eyes shut, because you are a threat, or you will jump ship the minute a better paid job comes up. Or thats what they think, irrespective of whether its true or not.

In desperation, because you have grafted all your life and miss it, you apply for donkey jobs, ....................and guess what?
 
They can't discriminate against you on the basis that you 'might leave'?!?!!!

Everyone is in the same boat that they'd leave for more wonga!!

They can and do. They don't want someone with ideas above their station. Recruiters absolutely look for people who lack ambition for menial roles. They don't want the hassle of replacing them and training a new recruit in a few months time. I sympathise with this catch 22.
 
They can discriminate against you on whatever basis they want, that's the whole point of an interview process.


Everyone would be in the same boat, however is someone with a degree or somebody with 5 GCSE's more likely to get a better job?

Depends. I see what you mean by the way. Take me. No qualifications at all. Didn't turn up to half of my GCSE'S yet have been working for my entire adult life, zero sickness, zero problems with lateness and earning a great wage. My friend from school went to university, worked his arse off, has a levels coming out of his arse and can't get a job cos he thinks he's too good for some offered to him.

Now as an employer if you compared our two cvs you'd probably take him but his attitude stinks and he works in a wether spoons part time and calls in sick regularly.

Give me someone likeme any day of the week. I help with recruiting by note taking in interviews and I wouldn't like to give the nod to someone from uni.
 
Depends. I see what you mean by the way. Take me. No qualifications at all. Didn't turn up to half of my GCSE'S yet have been working for my entire adult life, zero sickness, zero problems with lateness and earning a great wage. My friend from school went to university, worked his arse off, has a levels coming out of his arse and can't get a job cos he thinks he's too good for some offered to him.

Now as an employer if you compared our two cvs you'd probably take him but his attitude stinks and he works in a wether spoons part time and calls in sick regularly.

Give me someone likeme any day of the week. I help with recruiting by note taking in interviews and I wouldn't like to give the nod to someone from uni.


I understand your point, CV's don't tell the whole story. Even less so with the flimflam your currently expected to put on them to keep up with the rest of the applicants...
 
Not wishing to offend anybody in this thread, but I'd like to open up another debate.

Surely it is up to the interviewee to present their CV and work history in a way that would make them attractive to a prospective employer.

Similarly, during interview, it would be prudent to talk about aspects of your previous employment that a new employer would find useful. Rather than bleating on about work or experience you have that has no relevance to the role you are applying for.

The argument "I didn't get the job because I was over qualified" doesn't seem logical.

Not getting a job you are more than qualified to do indicates you fudged the interview process.
Not the other way around.


Very naive mate, very naive...
 
Not wishing to offend anybody in this thread, but I'd like to open up another debate.

Surely it is up to the interviewee to present their CV and work history in a way that would make them attractive to a prospective employer.

Similarly, during interview, it would be prudent to talk about aspects of your previous employment that a new employer would find useful. Rather than bleating on about work or experience you have that has no relevance to the role you are applying for.

The argument "I didn't get the job because I was over qualified" doesn't seem logical.

Not getting a job you are more than qualified to do indicates you fudged the interview process. Not the other way around.

Not always. I have only recently got a job after being out of work for seven months. In my desperation to work I was applying for both jobs commensurate with my skills experience and abilities, and for more basic jobs in the hope of getting some interim work before finding a long term role.

I was turned down on several occasions for the specific reason that I was overqualified and therefore the line manager/business owner was concerned that I would not stay in the post long term, ie that I would leave when a better opportunity presented itself. Well of course I would, who the hell wouldn't?

I think people recruiting to low grade, low paid posts have unrealistic expectations as to how long a successful candidate will stay there (if they are any good) with little chance of enhancing their salary/career in the short term.
 
So are you sending the same CV (the over qualified one), to all prospective employers?

If so, you're doing it wrong
 
Recruitment agencies have to give a rebate to the company if a candidate leaves within 12 weeks. Why would they set themselves up for a fall? I sympathise with overqualified people. If you are overqualified apply for jobs direct as much as you can that saved fee, (usually £1000-2000) might tip things in your favour.
 
So are you sending the same CV (the over qualified one), to all prospective employers?

If so, you're doing it wrong

I have about 20 different CVs listed in categories highlighting different levels of experience and skill sets

If you go too far in bending your history, its called lying
 
I have about 20 different CVs listed in categories highlighting different levels of experience and skill sets

If you go too far in bending your history, its called lying


If you go far enough to make a difference, gaps start to appear and they just ask you during the interview what you were doing in these 'missing' years.


Then you pretty much have to tell them what you were doing.
 
Back