Tavish wrote:I know you are hard headed at times, but I know you aren't completely obtuse. Do you really think that a word can not have a specific meaning within an environment?
Yes, I am hard headed at times, but I am using the word exactly as it was intended and written to be used. Just because the "industry standard" is to take multiple reasons and lump them under that term, that doesn't make it right, ok, or the truth.
Tavish wrote:I'm sorry but, you are making the term out to be something that it isn't.
I'm using it exactly as it was defined and intended to be used. For whatever reason, you're refusing to see that you are the one expanding the definition of the word and using it as a general excuse instead of the actual reason someone didn't get a job.
Tavish wrote:Being too smart for a job can cause an issue in some cases (boredom for the most part), but the most typical concerns for an employer hiring someone who is overqualified is the stepping stone concern or the pay expectancy. Job qualification, especially for very strong companies, are usually crafted in a very specific manner. They aren't just there to show the minimum amount of knowledge needed to handled a position. They are made not only for the applicant, but for the hiring department to determine the type of individual best suited to the position. Going too far over the qualifications can be just as much a hindrance as being too far beneath them. In some cases the employer is better off hiring an under-qualified applicant before an overqualified one.
In theory a company should always try and hire a person with the most qualification, in practice the nuclear physicist that you just hired on as a janitor isn't going to be scrubbing toilets a few years from now.
As I've said, I hear you and I don't disagree. What I've said is that companies should be honest. If someone expects pay that is too much, that should be given as the reason they didn't get hired. If the employer thinks the candidate is using the job as a "stepping stone", that's the reason that should be given. Lumping a bunch of stuff under 1 excuse should not be the norm. I know it currently is, but that doesn't make it right or honest.
Here, let me try this a different way: Employers should be more exacting when giving the reason for a non-hire. Quit using blanket statements like "overqualified" and start giving more pointed and exact reasons. Better?
GiantsFan14 wrote:Are you guys seriously arguing over this? Nothing in the world matters less than this.
You must be new here. We have argued over way less important things than this before.
Yes doctor, I am sick.
Sick of those who are spineless.
Sick of those who feel self-entitled.
Sick of those who are hypocrites.
Yes doctor, an army is forming.
Yes doctor, there will be a war.
Yes doctor, there will be blood.....