Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Federal Career Planning and Development

Are you looking to get promoted?
Maybe a change in your federal career?
Need tips on resume writing to land a federal job?
Or how to increase your salary or get a pay raise?

Join this active discussion with others climbing the same challenging career ladder.

Consider ordering some helpful resources or read today's top news stories on federal employee pay, benefits, retirement, job rights and other workplace issues by visiting FederalDaily.com.

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
ArmyCiv  
#1 Posted : Thursday, February 2, 2006 4:06:27 AM(UTC)

Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 1/10/2006(UTC)
Posts: 10

I recently applied and was referred on a position with DLA. I had been previously offered the positon, 1 year before, but declined. At that time, PCS funding was not available and relocation was not offered.

1 year later, the position had not been filled. I noticed that the announcement cited that PCS funding was available and relocation was offered, so I applied. Afterwards, I contacted the hiring authority to see if DLA would re-extend the original offer, but they would not. I went through the competitive process and interviewed. At that time, they told me that I was overqualified for the position.

Ultimately, I was not selected and was upset about it. IMHO, overqualified = best qualifed. Since it was a merit system announcement, I couldn't use my status to my advantage, just my qualifications.

Is it legal to avoid hiring due to being overqualified?

Anyone else have an experience like this to share?
mousavin  
#2 Posted : Tuesday, February 7, 2006 1:24:27 PM(UTC)

Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 1/23/2006(UTC)
Posts: 5

I am sorry, I'm not familiar with what DLA is, however, I think the managers were just trying to find the best match for the job. That involves a number of factors, among which includes, but is certainly not limited to, meritorious, objective, minimum qualifications.
You far exceed these minimium qualifications, but there are other factors- among them, how well you would fit the job- that are considered.

Regarding legality, I am not sure you have a case- not sure what laws they have broken. However, I'd talk to your civilian human resources advisor if you'd like more insight into legal oversight during the selection process, it may be information that is helpful to know in any event.

As for personal experience, I myself have been in a number of positions where I was overqualified. I can understand when the job market is not favorable how you'd like to have a job just to have employment but perhaps the managers are just being paternalistic and trying to save you from becoming bored or un-fulfilled at the job. In my experience in having jobs which I was overqualified for, I did not stay long- usually not even a year, and used it as a stepping stone to move to another position.

Perhaps the managers have had this same experience of short-lived employees in the past, and are trying to hire someone who will stay with them for a longer period of time.

Either way, keep reading up on tips and suggestions in landing federal jobs("10 Steps to a Federal Job" by Kathryn Troutman is excellent) and keep applying for positions, don't put all your eggs in one basket, and try not to lament on this particular case too much, jobs are about finding the right match- both for the candidate, as well as for the hiring team. Look for jobs that you already have a background in, and something you have a passion for would be helpful as well, keep applying, and you'll find something soon.

Good luck.
MavMin  
#3 Posted : Monday, February 13, 2006 1:50:04 AM(UTC)

Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 2/13/2006(UTC)
Posts: 7

I have head the overqualified thing since I got my first degree in '82. Funny, my bill collectors have never thought that. "Well, Sir, you are just so overqualified that we are writing off your bills." Sometimes I think it is just a nice way of letting you down rather than a true statement.

I have several degrees but none of them in my current field. I have written two books unrelated to my current FT career but are to my PT one. What employers should be looking at is that you have abilities beyond their current needs but it would be great to have you on board for the future. They should be happy that you will consider a job like theirs and see it as you are not being an egotistical twit that doesn't look at work "beneath" his vast wisdom.

Goals and aspirations change. My current position is quite a bit below my abilities but I opted for less stress as I hope to retire and start a FT career in my current PT one in a couple of years.

It has been suggested to me in the past that I should know what the median qualifications for the job are and write my resume accordingly. Leave off unrelated or unneeded degrees and "dumb down" your experience. In fact, I am coming to the conclusion that the dumber you are the better as I was hired for two jobs even though I wasn't even sure we were talking about the same career fields in those interviews and repeatedly answered that I didn't know the answer to their questions. Be technically correct but don't walk on water. Then if you are overqualified it is most likely a polite lie.

I have been in the workforce 36 years and the tickets you supposedly have to punch to be successful constantly change. Age discrimination is real and I would suspect that I would now hear overqualified to cover the fact that at 53, I am just too old for many places even in the Fed.

Anyway, good luck and keep trying. Someone will eventually see your true worth. The lads/lassies that passed you over lost out. That is their problem.
Rss Feed  Atom Feed
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.


This page was generated in 0.510 seconds.