Academically speaking, would you rather be overqualified for your job or meet the bare minimum qualifications? What are some short term and long term pros/cons for either situation?
I currently have a Bachelor of Science in Biomedical Engineering and work in a position that only requires an Associate of Science in Technology. As someone who aspires to be a leader of technical management, being overqualified can help me climb my company’s corporate ladder quicker than someone who has the bare minimal academic qualifications. This puts me at a significant advantage regarding any competition for future leadership roles within my company, deeming me a big fish in a small pond. As many of you graduate with a Master of Science in Biomedical Engineering, I encourage you to consider this question when applying for positions. You may find yourself settling for a position that only requires a Bachelor of Science and feel discouraged, however I believe you can find value in such a position if you have considered the many answers to this question.
I think it really depends on what you want and company culture as well as your management.
Here are a few advantages I see in being over qualified:
- Advantage over others who are seeking the same salary and position.
- Opportunities to step beyond your initial responsibilities.
- Opportunities to move horizontally and vertically in a large company.
In a case where an employer has to choose between a candidate who is academically meeting the minimums versus a candidate who is exceeding the academic minimums, it's more logical and likely for them to hire the candidate who exceeds the academic minimums because they can bring more to the table (assuming all else is equivalent: experience, character fit, etc).
Being over qualified for a position means you have a lot more to offer than what the position demands. This means that perhaps you will finish your tasks quickly because you're very knowledgeable and can help other teams with their projects. It could mean accepting more responsibilities from your management which is essentially a step up the ladder. All of which could constitute a "over performing" performance review and the rewards of such a review.
In cases where a co-worker above your level retires or otherwise leaves the company, you would have a significant advantage to replace them. You would be someone the management already knows and who meets the requirements.
Some of the benefits of being overqualified in my opinion:
You'll have an advantage over others competing for the same pay and position.
Possibilities to expand your obligations beyond your starting tasks.
In a huge corporation, there are opportunities to move horizontally and vertically.
When you're overqualified for a job, it indicates you have a lot more to give than the job requires. This might indicate that you'll complete your responsibilities fast because you're well-versed in the subject and can assist other teams with their initiatives. It might entail taking on extra duties from your boss, which is basically a promotion.
I hate when I am overqualified for a position. I think that most of the time, if one is overqualified, its mostly due to knowledge. Most employers do not want someone to already knows more than the individual who will probably train them. I would never short end myself by taking away or deleting someone of my qualifications to get a position.
I hate when I am overqualified for a position. I think that most of the time, if one is overqualified, its mostly due to knowledge. Most employers do not want someone to already knows more than the individual who will probably train them. I would never short end myself by taking away or deleting someone of my qualifications to get a position.
I think it is a double edge sword. In some fields, companies either want to much experience or they want the bare minimum. I have notice that a lot of time, I am stuck in the middle, I do not have the 10 years of experience to get the position that I know I can handle, however I do not want to go in as entry level because I do have experience. As a science teacher, moving into the industry I am researching ways now that I can leverage my educational experience and not go in under the entry level due to me now just entering the biomedical field.
When pursuing new roles, I prefer to be under qualified for the position, this would allow for growth by learning new ideologies and concepts on the job while also providing a challenge. Being overqualified for a position does not provide for a stimulating environment and in addition, the employer may not want to pay more for your qualifications leaving you to feel undervalued. However, some advantages to being over qualified for a position include being able to 'hit the ground running', having less training time, providing greater insight than someone who is under qualified, and having the opportunity to advance at the company in a shorter amount of time.
@samscott you have an interesting perspective on this matter! When reading your reply, I thought of the unique qualifications that are gained by working specific roles at specific companies. Although a person has many general qualifications, I believe that there is always room to learn more. For example, a sales associate a Ford Motor Company would know similar things as someone at Toyota, but the details of their jobs still differ. In this instance, do you believe that accepting a job that you may be overqualified for is short-ending yourself?
Academically speaking, would you rather be overqualified for your job or meet the bare minimum qualifications? What are some short term and long term pros/cons for either situation?
My preference in this matter depends on the specific role that I am fulfilling. The goal of joining a company is usually to grow in theindustry and help the company see growth. With this in consideration, it benefits to be overqualified in some areas and under qualified in others. This creates a mutualistic relationship in which you to add to the company while the company adds to you. A long and potentially short-term con of being overqualified is that you may not feel challenged by your job and you see little to no growth, whereas if you are under qualified, you may have difficulties matching the pace of the company. A short/longterm pro of being overqualified is that you always have something to add to the company and you help the company's growth and development. A short/longterm pro of being underqualified is that you always have room to grow and learn within the company. It is usually easier for companies to measure your growth when you are underqualified, but being overqualified may lead to lack of appreciation or acknowledgement of growth.
Being overqualified for a position has some clear advantages such as, learning more on the job in a small period, make connections, and proving yourself worth for the company's promotions. furthermore, it can help climbing the corporate ladder quicker. On the other hand, such a job can become less interesting over time and fails to motivate you to learn and improve yourself to move forward.
On the other hand, meeting the minimum qualifications will be a motive to push yourself out of your comfort zone and be an active learner. I always seek challenges in my life because that is how one grows; through trial and error. Being faced with a challenge will certainly make me seek a new solution or think out of the box.
@kmbell Although this question is not directed at me, I will answer. From what I understand, it appears as though you are asking if a sales associate from one company would be "short-ending" himself by moving to a sales position at another company in the same industry. In this instance the answer is no, in fact the employee may even get a raise in pay from moving to the other company, however I do not believe that the person in question would be over qualified for the position either. In fact, they would perfectly meet the qualifications. Should this sales associate have a MBA and is working a job intended for entry level BS or even AS position, then yes, they are overqualified! This is due to them having a higher degree of knowledge needed for the position. In this case I absolutely agree with Scott that they are "short-ending" themselves.
Being overqualified for a role does have its pros. Many people have already mentioned that you can climb that company ladder very quickly as you're bringing in way more than expected to the role. There might even be room to negotiate a higher salary given the proper background. However, internally you're not being challenged or really learning in your position, at first anyways. I think that it's important to continuously be challenged in your field and to keep learning.
Having just met the bare minimum can be both a great and awful thing. Unlike being overqualified, you are constantly being challenged and growing your skills and knowledge which really does help you succeed. However, it can contribute feelings of imposter syndrome which can hurt you in the long run. While having just met the bare minimum of a position be nerve wrecking, I do believe that this is a chance to prove to yourself that you can develop yourself and learn what you need to to be successful in the field. I've heard many people say you end up learning more on the job than you did in school so there is that chance to speak it into existence.
As someone that does enjoy being challenged and constantly learning, I would prefer just meeting the bare minimum for a job. It would be too easy for me to get comfortable in a position where I am overqualified and eventually, it would become boring and perhaps I would eventually resent it.
@sfrancis I had the same idea at first glance of the question. Being underqualified allows for a bigger gap of where you "should" be and gives you a clear objective to work towards, something that I really appreciate. However, my low-risk mindset would rather be overqualified for a position to ensure I can not only perform at my job well but to have some "edge" over my coworkers in the sense of job security.
With that said, the main reasons I would want to be overqualified is to use my "lower" position as a jumping pad to a more qualified position within the company. In my opinion this builds a solid rapport with the company that you want to move vertically with by demonstrating that you have broad horizons while also showing you're capable of "doing the work" and not just leading people around half-blind to the requirements of the projects. In my opinion, its hard to find that "perfect fit" of a company considering the amount of factors that are introduced such as salary, team size, team experience, project length and complexity and so on. On the topic of under/overqualified, do you believe there are positions that perfectly fit your skills? If so, would this be your dream job or do the jobs that we are "perfect" for not necessarily align with our job aspirations?
In a work experience, I would rather have just met the minimum qualifications. I think someone who is overqualified could have more potential to excel in their job and be more efficient in working. I think mentally it would be not as challenging, which could lead some to be bored of their job or not as passionate. Also with being overqualified, you do not get to learn more instead you would probably teach more, which for some people could be a con because they become stagnant. Additionally, they would be put to a higher standard, which could be more stressful because perfection would be expected of them. Another con to having overqualified people is that those positions tend to needed be filled faster because of how an overqualified person may want to leave or go elsewhere.
On the other hand, someone less qualified has the ability to grow. They also are more passionate, dedicated, and have drive to work. I feel like these candidates typically think outside the box because of being taught and challenged as they work. Once these people grow, they tend to help those around them who are less qualified, because they have experienced it themselves. They are also in the position for much longer, since they need to develop the skills and perfect them.
