Tavish wrote:Being overqualified for a job is something that extremely common and very likely has nothing to do with some veiled anti-lawyer agenda. I've come across it quite often when looking for secondary work and my company has a very similar hiring practice in place. The base reason for it is that if a person is well overqualified for a position they generally are using the job as a stop-gap until they can find a job that is closer to their qualifications (which usually means meets their pay expectations). For some companies that isn't that big of a deal and it used to not be a big deal for our company especially if the training investment for new employees is fairly low. But when we picked up contracts that required drug screening and full background checks for all employees along with added training, it wasn't feasible to hire highly overqualified applicants with an expectation of them only being there a few months.
It absolutely does suck for people who are trying to find a job and to be told they are overqualified, but it just a common part of the job market. Companies will play the percentages and reduce their risk even if that means missing out on that random gem.
Perfect example of what I'm saying. Your company wouldn't pass on an employee like her because she knows too much about the position (overqualified), they would pass on her because she doesn't project into being a long time employee. But they give her the "overqualified" excuse, even though that isn't the true reason.
I'm not saying a company is wrong for not hiring someone they think will only be temporary and I'm not saying they don't do exactly that, you are definitely correct on both accounts. All I'm saying is the "overqualified" excuse is given, when it isn't the true reason someone didn't get the job.