Hi, all.
I didn't feel like calling BBC World Service but still I feel the need to express myself on a topic I was listening to.
The (seemingly ridiculous) question BBC World Service proposes, is whether people should rather do nothing and stay on employment benefits than take jobs well below their expectations. Say you've spent 6 years studying architecture and all you get offered is delivering pizzas. I'm sure that I'd think about just staying on benefits if that were my particular case, but still, particularly in this economy, the very notion of refusing a job while unemployed at all seems outright absurd. I'd take the crap job and keep looking for a job in my field.
Actually, believe it or not, there is a counter-argument to that, which is raised by many calling in. It's that potential employers tend to refuse hiring people who are "over-qualified".
Most employers want to keep their staff for them to build up experience. Let's say that the aforementioned unemployed architect applies for a job selling books through phone. The employer knows that this person will actively be looking for a better job and so all the experience in telemarketing that the potential employee will pick up over the course of some months, will essentially be lost once he finally finds a job to his liking.
I can't help thinking about my own situation in this regard, and wanted to point out to something ironic. I'm a software developer. I have a decade of experience using virtually any operating system and virtually any programming language. It basically doesn't matter which computer-related job you give me, odds are I'll do just fine at it. But here's the thing; I have no formal education. I'm a college drop-out.
Throughout my entire career it has bothered me to not have any formal education. Once in a job interview, I feel I can prove my qualities but the problem has been getting an interview to begin with... to not be excluded immediately because of the fact that all I have to prove my abilities is work experience. Extensive work experience, but still only work experience.
And now I feel like I'm right there in the cozy middle. I know enough to be qualified, but I'm not over-qualified either. I don't have to rely on having to deliver pizzas for the rest of my life because I have no education, nor do I have to worry about potential employers worrying that I'll quit the moment I get another job offer. I'm competent enough for a job in my field, but I don't have to worry about being rejected because of over-qualification. I can deliver pizzas and I can do high-grade software engineering and in fact, anything in between.
So in this particular economy, maybe non-formal education is the best thing to have. Work experience and high capability without the problem of never getting a job below expectations for the exact reason that one is too competent.
I think it's a fair dilemma being highly educated and unemployed. You can't get the low-paying jobs because you're over-qualified, and you can't get the jobs in your own field because we're in the middle of an economic hurricane. You're forced to aim for the most difficult of jobs to get.
In that regard, my lack of formal education seems actually helpful, contrary to what most people would expect.
I dunno, I was just thinking and figured I wanted to share this with someone.
I didn't feel like calling BBC World Service but still I feel the need to express myself on a topic I was listening to.
The (seemingly ridiculous) question BBC World Service proposes, is whether people should rather do nothing and stay on employment benefits than take jobs well below their expectations. Say you've spent 6 years studying architecture and all you get offered is delivering pizzas. I'm sure that I'd think about just staying on benefits if that were my particular case, but still, particularly in this economy, the very notion of refusing a job while unemployed at all seems outright absurd. I'd take the crap job and keep looking for a job in my field.
Actually, believe it or not, there is a counter-argument to that, which is raised by many calling in. It's that potential employers tend to refuse hiring people who are "over-qualified".
Most employers want to keep their staff for them to build up experience. Let's say that the aforementioned unemployed architect applies for a job selling books through phone. The employer knows that this person will actively be looking for a better job and so all the experience in telemarketing that the potential employee will pick up over the course of some months, will essentially be lost once he finally finds a job to his liking.
I can't help thinking about my own situation in this regard, and wanted to point out to something ironic. I'm a software developer. I have a decade of experience using virtually any operating system and virtually any programming language. It basically doesn't matter which computer-related job you give me, odds are I'll do just fine at it. But here's the thing; I have no formal education. I'm a college drop-out.
Throughout my entire career it has bothered me to not have any formal education. Once in a job interview, I feel I can prove my qualities but the problem has been getting an interview to begin with... to not be excluded immediately because of the fact that all I have to prove my abilities is work experience. Extensive work experience, but still only work experience.
And now I feel like I'm right there in the cozy middle. I know enough to be qualified, but I'm not over-qualified either. I don't have to rely on having to deliver pizzas for the rest of my life because I have no education, nor do I have to worry about potential employers worrying that I'll quit the moment I get another job offer. I'm competent enough for a job in my field, but I don't have to worry about being rejected because of over-qualification. I can deliver pizzas and I can do high-grade software engineering and in fact, anything in between.
So in this particular economy, maybe non-formal education is the best thing to have. Work experience and high capability without the problem of never getting a job below expectations for the exact reason that one is too competent.
I think it's a fair dilemma being highly educated and unemployed. You can't get the low-paying jobs because you're over-qualified, and you can't get the jobs in your own field because we're in the middle of an economic hurricane. You're forced to aim for the most difficult of jobs to get.
In that regard, my lack of formal education seems actually helpful, contrary to what most people would expect.
I dunno, I was just thinking and figured I wanted to share this with someone.
.
