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?
Academically speaking, I would rather meet the bare minimum qualifications because if I meet the bare minimum qualifications, I could always gain the experience I need to move forward. If I'm overqualified for a position, I would have no room to grow in my role, so I could possibly be looking for a promotion that will never come or is way further down the line than I expect. It would also make me feel a way because I could be more qualified than my actual boss. I feel like I would grow to resent my job if I am over qualified for a position.
A positive of being over qualified for your current position would be if a position becomes open soon after you are hired, or after being there for a year, you can be put into the position because you already have the experience and qualifications that they are looking for.
A negative with being barely qualified for a position you got is you could be past over for a lot of growth opportunities because you don't have the necessary qualifications to move forward in your career and in the company.
Week 1:
Before answering the question, of course I thought about what I believe my personally feeling were about the subject. I also, read through the comments to see how others felt. The comments were rather enlightening. What I gathered from other's experiences is that being overqualified can be an advantage due the fact that the individual is able to easily launch themselves forward within the company due to the lack of competition, the individual will be well-versed in their job responsibilities, job security is often guaranteed, and there is opportunity for a better pay. However, the disadvantages are that there could be an issue of becoming stagnate, fewer happenings of challenges that produces growth, dull workers attitude, short time spent in position and the individual simply "short-handing" themselves.
On the other hand, in the case of being underqualified, the opposite was expressed. Being underqualified allows for skill growth, being challenged, longevity within company due to on-going development, more passionate about the job and willingness to learn. The disadvantages were slim-to-none. The only "con" I noticed was "competition".
My personal experiences will influence my answer. I believe that the pros and cons of both are based on the same common denominators, such as the position type (companies may expect you to be overqualified due to the position because an underqualified individual may not be able to handle the responsibilities and/or work-load) and work environment (there is no perfect cookie-cutter work environment nor is there a " one-size fit all" work system. We learned this in project management). I am pretty young and I am okay with acknowledging that I am underqualified (in experience). I've only recently graduated from undergrad. But, using my past job exposures, whether it be a customer rep. at Walgreens or a science teacher at a high school, I've come to understand that those two "common denominators" possibly dictate qualification and an individual's growth in any company/profession.
Throughout my job search process, I have pondered this question many times. There are several pros and cons of each, which I have listed below:
- Pros for being overqualified:
- An opportunity to earn more pay
- An opportunity to move up quicker
- Not being overwhelmed but still being open to learn
- Cons for being overqualified:
- Feeling stuck and unmotivated with coworkers and job
- Pros for being underqualified:
- An opportunity to learn
- Being around more knowledgeable people and possibly opening the door for mentorship
- Cons for being underqualified:
- Being overwhelmed and possibly not being able to keep up with designated tasks
I think it depends on the job and the company. I would rather be slightly overqualified because I do not like feeling overwhelmed and lost, and I have been in that position before. Being overqualified allows you to come in with some understanding and pick up new techniques along the way.
Being overqualified for a position is a disadvantage, in my opinion. I believe that one should be in a field that constantly challenges them while allotting time for developing expertise along the way. If you are an expert in your role at a company, burnout is likely to occur much sooner. There are a few benefits to being overly qualified, such as effectively executing all responsibilities. It makes colleagues dependent on the contributions of your role more confident in completing their tasks. I do believe that enough familiarity with responsibilities or skills is critical. However, there should be a gap of knowledge and expertise that one may learn throughout their career in a company.
Academically speaking, I would prefer to simply meet the bare minimum requirements for my job instead of being overqualified. However, I do think this somewhat depends on the position as well. In my workplace, I value the ability to challenge myself, grow, and learn something new every once in a while. If I were overqualified I wouldn't be able to learn much and would eventually get bored with not having to think about what I am doing. Depending on how overqualified I am for the position, unless I am surrounded by other overqualified people, I would likely get frustrated with my environment. I do not want to feel as if the time and money spent on my education was a waste and not make use of my knowledge/education. There are some cons to just meeting the bare minimum standards such as not being able to compete with those who may be more qualified than you for the position and having to constantly grind and be extremely on top of things in order to learn everything and make sure that you are doing everything properly. I still would prefer this though than to be overqualified.
On the other hand, there are some pros to being overqualified for a position. In the short term, being overqualified can allow you to learn the job relatively quickly and it may be easier for you than others to learn and become familiar with it. You could also be held to a higher expectation than others in the same position as you (whether that is a pro or a con would really be up to the person). There is also a chance that you could negotiate your pay a little more as an overqualified candidate. In the long-term, being overqualified can help you move up in a company as you already possess advanced skills. You also could provide more value to the company through insight, maybe teaching others, and sharing experiences. Personally, these advantages still are not good enough to outweigh how bored and unmotivated I would likely feel as an overqualified employee(depending on the position). I always wonder about this question from the perspective of a hiring manager because I can see the advantages and disadvantages of both options. If you were a hiring manager, would you prefer to hire someone who is overqualified or someone who simply meets the bare minimum qualifications?
I believe that there are many pros and cons that come with being overqualified for a job position. Those pros and cons can apply to either the business owners or the individual being hired. The new employee may enjoy the ability to have more independence than other employees in the work setting as he or she won't require much training to perform their duties and responsibilities. The new hire may also be chosen to hold many leadership roles to teach and provide valuable knowledge to the other employees. However, I do believe that being overqualified can become overwhelming and may make the employee feel as if there are no opportunities for growth. This can cause boredom in the individual's field of work and may even encourage laziness. From the company's standpoint, business owners will be able to achieve higher productivity and reach milestones faster with help from the employee's expertise and overqualification. Their talent pool will definitely be improved as higher expectations will be placed on individuals entering those positions. Although overqualified employees add value to a company in many ways, they will more than likely cost the company more to keep. I think a great question to pose about the topic would be whether or not hiring managers view this as more of a risk or an opportunity for growth.
It is better to be overqualified for a job because being overqualified means you have additional capabilities that clearly position you for a higher position. I know what I am worth and how I have the capabilities to advance the company. You may have the opportunity to grow if you are overqualified. Now the cons of being over-qualified may cause anxiety among other employees if they perceive that you will replace them with a new employee, or the company might have to pay more to hire someone with more skills than you had hoped for. My fear is that even if I meet the bare minimum requirements, the company may reject my application because I don't have enough experience or have none at all. Meeting the bare minimum can bring some benefits for a company, such as new ideas and hidden talent. These professionals may also express more gratitude for the opportunity, and work harder to prove the investment is worthwhile. The bottom line is it depends largely on the company and what they need to help them succeed.
This is a question I've asked myself countless times in my very brief career thus far, but I've come to the conclusion that having the absolute least requirements is preferable. If I am overqualified, I don't think I would stay on the job for very long since, given the range of my expertise, I won't be intellectually challenged. Additionally, if you consider a comparable wage, an individual who is overqualified will eventually depart for a position paying a better income commensurate with their degree of experience. The last thing I want to say about being overqualified is that, especially if your supervisor is less experienced than you, you probably won't get along with team members who have less experience. I believe this might lead to tension. I believe that if I work a job that I am underqualified for, I will be more devoted and proud of myself since I understand that it may present an excellent learning opportunity. Employees who are underqualified or outside the norm frequently have a skill set that is useful to a business. In the end, it does vary from business to business.
@samscott I have heard this many times before. As a black woman who had her first doctorate degree at 25, I was seen as not having enough "experience" in the field I studied in so I would need to do that first. Not getting these positions forced me to apply for jobs where you only needed a Bachelor's or Associate's degree. Initially, I put all of my requirements on my resume to not sell myself short. Well, It backfired because they were not willing to pay me what I deserved so they passed on me all together. I was told I had a very impressive resume and they loved me in the interview but I learned not to put all my credentials on every application. Now, I tailor my experience for only what the position requires. If the job want on a bachelors, then that what I have. Do you think this is a good practice or should I keep my CV standard and hope for the best?
I would rather be overqualified because it gives me the opportunity to cast a wide net for my professional development. This particular situation would also have the upper hand in negotiating salary and benefits due to experience. However, being overqualified for a job can sometimes stall professional growth and seem mundane because the job is not challenging or bringing out your passion for the job. I have personally been in this position and after a year in the role, I felt unmotivated and unchallenged. I then began looking for jobs in my industry that I knew would challenge me and help me develop my skill set. This lead to me meeting the minimum qualifications, but in my case I still had the necessary experience the role required.
Meeting the minimum qualifications doesn't necessarily mean that you're starting at the very bottom. I think it leaves room for growth and the opportunity to adapt to a new environment. In the long-term, being minimally qualified allows a person to truly learn about themselves, the type of work they enjoy, and create a sense of pride knowing that you're learning and growing along the way.
If you accepted a job and knew you were overqualified, how would you use the role to prepare you for your future career?
I have accepted a job I was overqualified for. A couple of years ago, I worked for a midsize company as a project manager, and they decided to let some of us go because of the pandemic. After a few weeks, I accepted a job with a state agency as a vanpool coordinator for the Peachpass division. My goal was to work long enough to receive much-needed benefits such as health and tuition. I was overqualified, and the job became unfulfilling quickly. It motivated me to find something better that could be a little more challenging. Regardless of the position, it's always my mission to learn something new, sharpen my skills, or use it as a networking opportunity.
In regards to being underqualified, I have experienced that also. I worked for a signage company that produces internal and external signs for companies, mainly hospitals. When I started project management, I had zero experience. I had to learn a lot very fast because I had to deal with timelines, budgets, contracts, codes, etc. This job was such a rewarding experience. I believe that sometimes companies will hire you with minimal qualifications because you may exemplify a specific skill set they are looking for. They recognize that you are trainable and can adapt to the company's culture.
@ljatta Hi Lisa, I would absolutely see it as an advantage to take a job that I am overqualified for. In fact, it would be a great opportunity to assume a more leadership role among my peers to share the extra knowledge that I have in the area and garner ways to increase efficiency and quality of our work. Great question!
Academically speaking I would be overqualified for my current position. I feel there are pros and cons to this such as academically you could be overqualified but experience wise you could lack a lot of learning that would be expected of you in your career if you were to move to a position where you are matching the educational qualifications. A con could also be the time you spend in schooling as well as the cost it can be difficult to work in situations where you know you are overqualified and very likely underpaid for the education that you have.
I would rather NOT be overqualified for a job. A quick story, I was jobless after graduating with a bachelor's degree. I needed money to do things that I wanted to do, like go vegan, buy myself groceries and start my own business. I had a hard time finding jobs. I went for the first job I seen, which was Kroger's. I felt embarrassed that I, someone who had great experience in research and in the lab, was working a grocery store for 12 dollars an hour. I was too overqualified for the job. It is not a good feeling to be overqualified for a job. I quit and then found a job that I met the requirements for. It is wonderful.
Being overqualified for a job may seem good at first. Knowing more, getting praise will make people happy. However, the work done after a certain period of time will not satisfy you. you will look for more, but if opportunities do not allow, you will not have the opportunity to advance more work. For this reason, you may start to get bored with your life, and this will cause you to be unhappy in the future. For this reason, when looking for a job and applying for a job, job options should be well evaluated and the most optimum should be struggled for.
