As Ken said... happens all the time. Sometimes the employer is concerned you'll try to take over and run things from an hourly position. Sometimes it's money. They take an entry-level person to be cheap.
JimBobLc
Posts: 192
Martinsburg, West Virginia, US
That's why I tell employers I just want to stay in the background and collect a paycheck, not too concerned about showing any signs of ambition or talent.
Some pros/studios may be reluctant to hire as they feel their employee - if too smart - will get their best accounts and set up their own business. Actually, several have around here and it's not uncommon to hear: "I used to work for ...." out of them. Pros here seem not to like other pros, especially with school accounts. Competition in a bad market maybe.
Even a local college professor who taught photography was on the selection committee for an adjunct photo professor and he picked a really bad one. When queried, he responded: "If I had picked someone better than me, it would have hurt 'my' enrollment numbers." Interesting.
GoldRoseMedia
Posts: 2,708
NORTH BRUNSWICK, New Jersey, US
JimBobLc wrote: That's why I tell employers I just want to stay in the background and collect a paycheck, not too concerned about showing any signs of ambition or talent.
lol Reminds me of a Tracy Ullman skit I saw many years ago, where a female manager hired a man over two much more qualified female candidates, because he was a complete buffoon and she found him totally unattractive, therefore he was no threat to her.
Ron Spackman
Posts: 200
High River, Alberta, Canada
The usual reason is that you're over qualified. The employer is worried (and usually justly) that you'll only stay until you find a job that offers higher pay (commensurate with your qualifications) and a chance to fully utilize your skills.
Chris Hayden
Posts: 19
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US
I've gotten turned down for photo jobs with the excuse "you seem like a professional, so we think you'd expect to get paid like a professional." This was for a startup 'modeling agency', of all things. They wanted someone who'd work for free/cheap; not someone who would take good photos and add value. Their website turned out to be some slapdash geocities crap with cell phone pictures of their models. I believe they folded after about 4 months.
It is quite an issue, IMO; as you are passed when being or perceived as overqualified, you find that at your actual level of competency the competition is hard...
JimBobLc wrote: That's why I tell employers I just want to stay in the background and collect a paycheck, not too concerned about showing any signs of ambition or talent.
Does that actually help? In my experience, employers often want someone that just barely meets qualifications but is driven - that way they get a hard worker that they can pay less.
Ron Spackman wrote: The usual reason is that you're over qualified. The employer is worried (and usually justly) that you'll only stay until you find a job that offers higher pay (commensurate with your qualifications) and a chance to fully utilize your skills.
There's your answer, right there. "You're overqualified" usually means "We think you'd just end up being a temp."
Michael McGowan wrote: As Ken said... happens all the time. Sometimes the employer is concerned you'll try to take over and run things from an hourly position. Sometimes it's money. They take an entry-level person to be cheap.
Wait till you've retired. Then you can get hired.
The opposite is true as well.
Many employers also think that you're barely in it just for the paycheck while you're looking for something better. The worry is that you will be a disgruntled or lazy employee. It's like hiring to enjoy somebody else's problem.
Or worse, they may think you're no good because you can't keep a job in the first place and might be over representing yourself.
Or they may think that its a low position that is more appropriate for a low employee.
Many reasons, but many may have nothing to do with you.
M
If this NY Times article is any indication, they're in no great hurry to hire anyone. Instead they're waiting for the perfect candidate (as if one one exists).
Employers are getting a deluge of applicants that they're also desperate to winnow the applicant field any way they can. Like many will only consider an applicant if they already have a job.
Its gotten so bad there are various states (as well as the Feds) have proposed legislation out there prohibiting it.
just this very week, guy i went for an interview with could see i knew more about his job than he ever will, i was trained in sydney he was trained on bumpkin mountain.
Photo 4 All
Posts: 17
Tilburg, Noord-Brabant, Netherlands
Chris Hayden wrote: I've gotten turned down for photo jobs with the excuse "you seem like a professional, so we think you'd expect to get paid like a professional." This was for a startup 'modeling agency', of all things. They wanted someone who'd work for free/cheap; not someone who would take good photos and add value. Their website turned out to be some slapdash geocities crap with cell phone pictures of their models. I believe they folded after about 4 months.
A-M-P wrote: Have you ever been denied a job because you are over qualified?
Examples assisting ,second shooting or working for someone else's studio
Yes. And I have denied someone a job because they were over qualified.
When hiring I am looking for someone who will want to fill that role for some time and grow within it. If they are already over qualified they are unlikely to enjoy the job, consider it to be better than other opportunities that may come along and stay for any length of time. Not worth the hassle to hire them only to be looking again before long.
D-Light wrote: It happens all the time, to lots of people.
Has happened me as a photographer and in my previous job.
Take it as a compliment. It means you're good and they feel threatened by you.
Not necessarily. They may just think that it is a bad fit. The job won't be satisfying for you and you won't stick around. Waste of everybody's time and effort.
I have spent my entire adult life as an employer. I have never been an employee since my early days in college. I have often turned people down because they are over-qualified. Whether it was a computer professional or office worker before I retired, or an assistant or set builder today.
Three months ago I turned down a very experienced and talented photographer for a position as a studio assistant. I picked a young woman with very limited photography experience but the personality I was looking for. My assistant moves around light stands, shepherds models, fills out forms, dresses sets and cleans the studios. There are very limited duties that relate directly to photography but do involve the operation of the studio.
I declined the talented photographer because my goal wasn't to train him but to run my studio efficiently. His goal was to land any job he could get in the industry. The young woman I hired as proven to be an invaluable asset that isn't going to run off as soon as she finds a photography job at the next level.
Ken got it right; it happens all the time. I have done it often.
Ron Spackman wrote: The usual reason is that you're over qualified. The employer is worried (and usually justly) that you'll only stay until you find a job that offers higher pay (commensurate with your qualifications) and a chance to fully utilize your skills.
+1. Employing someone and training them is expensive. Other than that they could have just been polite.
People don't want to hire assistants who can swoop in and take their clients. They're happy with people not aggressively shooting themselves to be honest. In LA you hire assistants. You don't hire photographers looking for extra cash.
Also many photographers don't want assistants who are photographers. They want someone big and strong to carry equipment, get the lunch and put up lights.
They don't want someone to change settings or adjust lighting or ask questions in the middle of the shoot, or pass out business cards.
Karl Johnston
Posts: 7,234
Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada
AspirationImages wrote: Also many photographers don't want assistants who are photographers. They want someone big and strong to carry equipment, get the lunch and put up lights.
They don't want someone to change settings or adjust lighting or ask questions in the middle of the shoot, or pass out business cards.
i dunno where you got that idea from but it's total bullshit
.
| 
| 
| edu