I like many others in life have had rejection letters or emails from jobs which have been applied for. It comes with the territory I suppose and it is one of life's bitter sweet slaps around the face.One thing I have found, and please believe me when I say I am not blowing my own trumpet, is that I have been turned down before on occasions, for being 'over qualified', which astounds me and renders me bloody aggravated at the same time. Surely being 'over qualified' means that your knowledge of the job offered is second to none and no-one in their right mind would not employ you?
Comments at interviews such as, "Hmm, you have a lot of qualifications," and "Your very knowledgeable in these areas. Maybe too much so." leads me to believe that the person interviewing will not take on such a person if they are more intelligent than themselves. On any level.
Bloody ridiculous. What exactly was the point of me doing all these exams and courses to get me the job that I wanted if no bugger is going to take them on board? I feel like I had wasted all that time in university getting plastered at parties for no reason. I actually found that by dumbing myself down and removing qualifications by just putting the basics such as Maths and English, maybe keeping a science, gave me more interviews and job offers than I had ever had before.
Still, if that doesn't work for you, try this handy template to reply to said rejection letters replacing the areas betwixt ** with the appropriate relevant details, if you really do want that job.
Dear *name of person in human resources, or if not known just 'Sir'*
Thank you for your letter of *date*. After careful consideration, I
regret to inform you that I am unable to accept your refusal to offer me
the position of *position* in your department.
This year I have been particularly fortunate in receiving an unusually
large number of rejection letters. With such a varied and promising field
of candidates, it is impossible for me to accept all refusals.
I find that your rejection does not meet my needs at this time.
Therefore, I will assume the position of *position* in your department
on the *date*. I look forward to seeing you then.
Best of luck in rejecting future applicants.
Sincerely,
*your name*
Posts
3 comments:
Cute. And it could just work, in some cases. You have nothing to lose by trying it, unless they still reject you and you apply there for a different position, in the future. You won't get hired then, either, and it won't be because you are over qualified. It will because they think you are a few cards short of a deck, and only holding jokers.
I know it is frustrating when you get rejection letters & emails like that, but you need to step back and see things from HR's point of view:
They have an empty position that needs to be filled and they must find the right person to fill it. Each time they hire someone to fill this position, there is a certain amount of training that must take place, and that costs the company money.
If they hire someone that is under qualified, it is likely they will have to fire him and the position will be empty again. It could even be worse if the dude they hire really screws things up. And they will have to pay to train his replacement, just like they had to pay to train him.
If they hire someone over qualified, they won't be using all his talents and skills or paying him what he is truly worth. He is likely to become bored with the job, not feel challenged enough, and six months after you hire him, he will quit when he gets an offer for a better job that will challenge him and pay him more. Then you are back at square one with an empty position to fill again. And again, you have to pay for training a replacement.
Plus, there are benefits to hiring someone that fits the job perfectly. He is more likely to be a team player that will be there for the long haul. His co-workers get used to him, like him, and work well with him. He becomes an asset to the company, instead of a liability that will run away at the first chance he gets, always looking for something better, and never being happy or satisfied with his position. Plus you only pay to train a guy for the position about once every five years, maybe even longer...so you save the company a lot of money as compared to training a new guy every six months.
I would never hire someone that was a professional tropical fish breeder, as a floor clerk in the pet department of a discount store, even if we sold live goldfish.
It's not that I don't think he would do the job well, because the fish would be in great hands with him...but the low pay and other menial duties would lead him to seek a better job within the near future.
Plus by tying up his time all day by keeping him in the store working for me, I am cheating him of the opportunity to find himself something he would be more suited for and much happer with. He can't be at an interview and stocking my shelves at the same time, can he?
If it were a part time or temp position, I might feel differently, but to fill a permanent full time position, I want someone that will last.
Don't get discouraged. You will find a job you are rightly qualified for, sooner or later. And when you do, you will be much happier with it and less likely to end up unemployed again, in the near future.
Agreed, and job seekers do use the form at your own risk, even though it is meant to be light hearted, I wager some bugger out there would actually try it.
Unemployment in and around our area is increasing for older people, and I hear quiet a few stories on the grapevine of the term 'Over Qualified' being used. I am leaning towards the meaning of that term as a euphemism for being too old or wants too much money. Since the day had dawned that we have to be politically correct in everything we say or do I could be fired for saying that you are too old for the position.
So you are overqualified.
It's just happy talk.
I would suggest if someone is of the older variety, that in writing CV's only go back ten years and maybe drop some of those high end qualifications and salary requirements to see if that will cause the fish to bite. You don't have to take the job, you just want to see if the "hit rate" increases because of the change.
If a company wants five years of experience, they may not pay for ten. In other words, more is not always better on a CV.
Old skill sets and old dates can immediately trigger a no hire situation. If you are going to be denied the position, let it happen at the interview stage and not at the CV stage.
Speaking of age, jobs, & interviews...
My dad has worked for the "Who's Who" in high finance...tons of experience on a lot of levels. He has a lot of degrees...Computer Science, Education, Finance, Psychology...
When he left his position as Assistant VP of Credit at a major bank, he applied for a government job with the finance department of a very large US city. It was a pretty high level job too, and paid a lot of money.
When they called him in for the interview, the interviewer looked at him, looked at the resume, and said "Either you are not the guy this resume belongs to, or you are a liar, because there is no way a guy your age could have done all of this.
My dad stood up and reached into his pocket and pulled out his drivers license, handed it to the guy and said with a smile "That's my resume, and I am a lot older than you think."
The interviewer's reaction? He was stunned. He thought my dad was in his early 30's, or that was his guess based on appearance. My dad said "No, but I have kids that age. Does that count? And a 10 year old grand-daughter too."
The interviewer asked "How do you do it? How do you manage to stay so young looking?"
My dad says "I don't age. I age other people."
They hired him and he has been working there for the last 12 years.
Post a Comment