Talk:Overqualification

Dead links
Reference 6 titled "A Portrait of the Ph.D. as a Failure" is a dead link.Waxsin (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

This page should be huge!
C'mon people. This is a fundamental labor principle that could support a huge page. - Peregrinefisher 07:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Revision of anonymous edits
I reverted the recent anonymous edits adding the text: "However, this is a distorted argument. While some low ranking universities choose to specialize in teaching and hire staff without Ph.Ds, it is inconceivable that a Princeton, Harvard, Oxford or Cambridge would appoint a Professor who did not hold one."

This statement is problematic for so many reasons. The statement "this is a distorted statement" is POV and doesn't contain any content. If you believe the original paragraph is distorted, you are free to add material that has discussion of this issue, from reputable sources, expressing alternative viewpoints. I agree that the current text is biased in that it presents only one perspective, and I would welcome people discussing overspecialization with respect to Ph.D's from other perspectives.

Next, many elite schools utilize non-tenure-track teaching faculty that do not hold Ph.D's. This begs the question of why it is necessary for the schools to hire such faculty.

Lastly, I totally agree with your comment that the schools you mentioned would not hire tenure-track professors without Ph.D.'s. I think everyone would agree here. But this doesn't refute the existing paragraph, which mentions: "an undesireable set of professional priorities, often focusing on self-promotion."...these schools, being the highest-status of schools in the world, actively embrace and even promote the "set of professional priorities" that are considered undesireable in other schools. Cazort (talk) 23:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

what look like overqualified sometimes found like a person that is to old to a spsepic job
and that is very sadly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.203.90.226 (talk) 10:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Tone - Ph.D. among other things
For such a large subject, this article seems to have a few problems beyond being too short. Throughout the entire article there is no neutral tone given to the article. Only a few parts sound authoritative and showcasing why being overqualified can be both a good thing and a bad thing aren't represented here. I normally would wait before putting the template up, but the article is clearly bias, especially against the doctor of philosophy degree (among other doctoral degrees). There is no problem with showing the perspective that an employer may look down upon not having a broad enough scope of experience, but dedicating half of the article to why the Ph.D. is bad isn't very neutral. If you have another opinion or anything to add please do! :)

-- DM Bradbury  05:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The concept of "overqualification" is inherently negative. But I agree with you that this page could be improved.  For example, one big phenomenon that is missing for the page is when people use "overqualification" as a euphemism for negative or undesireable job characteristics--the article mentions overqualification as a proxy for age discrimination.  I think employers are also often concerned that it reflects a lack of initiative.  Maybe I can work on this a bit.  Cazort (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

"The Ph.D. degree can reflect overspecialization that manifests itself as a lack of perspective and a lack of confidence..." This is simply not true or at least misleading. The Ph.D. degree reflects perspective beyond just knowledge and is actually a sign of true confidence. Also, the word "overspecialization" is just as useless and misleading as most of this article. On the other hand, the idea that overqualified people should not be hired because they actually want something better is just as illogical as saying that women should not be hired because they want to take care of their kids and will have to miss work days.

The concept of "overqualification" is not inherently negative. Also, all characteristics that "overqualified" individuals have do not necessarily come from "overqualification": correlation does not imply causation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.111.134.77 (talk) 00:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah who wouldn't want an overqualified heart surgeon, attorney or accountant? I would take great comfort knowing my surgeon was overqualified. It would almost assure performance competency. 71.180.167.157 (talk) 23:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree that the section on people with Ph.D.s is extremely biased and stereotyping. Ph.D. graduates in fact have to be expert organizers and planners in carrying out detailed research, analyzing it for errors, consulting with people for review. The real reason people with Ph.D.s are rejected for "overqualification" is simple and obvious: people in managing positions in the company who have less education levels and who have worked their way up, worry about such people with Ph. D.s being able to quickly rise up in the company and potentially take their positions. It's a deal to ward of animosity in a company towards a person who may quickly be able to displace others. This other stuff about Ph.D.s having "lack of confidence" is nonsense rhetoric used to justify a company wishing to ward off internal conflict between experienced people and a person with a Ph.D. It's not pretty, it has irrational elements, but that's what it is.--184.145.67.28 (talk) 14:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Overqualification. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080421004607/http://units.aps.org:80/units/fiap/newsletters/nov95/03.cfm to http://units.aps.org/units/fiap/newsletters/nov95/03.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Overqualification. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20071020004552/http://web2.ade.org/ade/bulletin/n027/027004.htm to http://web2.ade.org/ade/bulletin/n027/027004.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304032218/http://teaching.ust.hk/~mgto650r/clee/Day_2_reading_material/multi-wave.pdf to http://teaching.ust.hk/~mgto650r/clee/Day_2_reading_material/multi-wave.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Trolling
References to space-time.. someone obviously having fun with excessive jargon 2A02:C7F:EAC1:8700:F91B:71EF:F81C:69D (talk) 04:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Age fallacy
For hiring personnel to disqualify an applicant from an employment position because the applicant does not have the preferred education for the position, as may have been alleged by hiring personnel, is for the hiring personnel to indirectly commit the age fallacy. Such is for hiring personnel to indirectly commit the age fallacy because hiring personnel is considering that the education of the applicant, which is dependent on a length of time (“age”) sustained for any one or more educational ventures (as considered relevant educational ventures by hiring personnel), is an economic indicator that the applicant for the position of employment will have success in the position of employment for some length of time when the fact of the matter is that such is not an economic indicator that the applicant for the position of employment will have success in the position of employment for some length of time: this is evidenced by the fact that correlation (or “an applicant’s educational background”) does not imply causation (or “that the applicant will be successful in the position for which the applicant has applied for some length of time”).

Regardless, aging is required for a marketable skill to be acquired. Thus, the occurrence of experience acquisition is foundationally dependent on aging (change over time of matter), which is a length of time where changes have occurred.

Performance aptitude
The term “overqualified” should not be used to describe an employer’s “uncertainty of an applicant's ability to do the job” because there are only two outcomes: the applicant is either capable or incapable of completing tasks required by the job to the level of skill ("qualification"), as defined by the employer. If an employer discriminates on such alleged ability, then the employee should consider that discrimination has occurred on at least one ground protected by law (such as religion, whereby one's axiology as defined by physical and psychological attributes, might be defined as one's "religion") because those grounds are the only grounds for which discrimination is based from. Biohistorian15 (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Original research or not? Biohistorian15 (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)