"Overqualified"

[bjcheung77]

Ageism exists, it really depends on the person reading your details and doing the interview, I would apply to more positions and go to more interviews with your 'game face', you're ready to take the role and like a poker player, you're going to be unphased by their ways, go get those interviews done and the company/team that hires you, they are the 'right fit'. Forget those who don't hire you, they're just missing out...

[dfrecore]

---

Nothing says that you have to mention all of your degrees every time you're doing a job search. If the job only wants to know about a Bachelor's degree, you might want to mention a Master's degree but probably not the PhD. I'm not saying that you should lie, of course, simply don't bring it up. Especially if you don't want the kind of jobs that your higher degrees might indicate. Not everyone wants to be a college professor or whatever, and that's okay. Tailor your resume/CV to the job in question.

The problem is that if you left out say your PhD and PostDoc from your resume that could leave a gap of about a decade.  Recruiters are generally averse to gaps of a few months, imagine if the gap were several years. Recruiters have a bias to trash.  

There won't be a gap of a decade, because that would imply that they're looking for more education, and the chances are, they're not.  So they'll just see your bachelor's (and maybe your master's) and that's it.  They won't go looking for more.  There is no "gap" in education there.

[sarahmac]

It may also be worth thinking about what they meant by overqualified.

For example, is a person with a PhD in Linguistics applying for a junior-level IT position overqualified? Not really. They can't aim higher than the junior level in IT, because they don't have IT experience. Recruiters may be wary that said individual would leave the junior level IT role for an industry that better fits their qualifications, but for the IT job itself, they aren't overqualified.

This is the situation with the "even baristas in Europe having a masters degree" that you mentioned--they most likely do not have a PhD in coffee technology. The barista with a PhD in History working as a junior rather than senior barista is not overqualified for that junior barista role if they only made their first latte last week.

This matters because it is somewhat of a different problem to someone with a PhD and extensive experience *in IT* applying for that same lower-level junior IT role as the PhD linguist.

That person truly would be overqualified for that job, and recruiters are much more likely to be concerned they won't stay long because they expect to progress upward into a higher-level role. If there is limited scope for upward movement, they're a poor fit for the company.

Different problems means different solutions, but we don't know which camp you fall into.

Are you applying for jobs in industries that match your qualifications but at a lower level, or are you applying for lower-level jobs in industries that don't match your qualifications because you've decided on a new career direction?

[davewill]

The complaint of "overqualified" can mean they are afraid you won't stay because you are looking for a better job. If you have a work history showing otherwise (you stay for a long time) by all means point that out.

Sure you could point that out if you get to be interviewed by a human.  The fact is that the majority of applicants are trashed even before they get a first screening call.

I was reacting to your opening post where you said "I was told by recuiters" so you had a chance to say somethng in at least those cases. As far as the LinkedIn problem, if the PhD isn't for job purposes, don't include it there, either.

P.S. If you expect to avoid all vestiges of age discrimination or never be rejected for being "overqualified" you are bound to be disappointed. You can try some or all of these things and they might help. They definitely won't eliminate the problem entirely.