I've never understood how being "overqualified" is a problem. No one says you have to list your degree or make mention of it. Just pretend you don't have one? What am I missing here? Are people too egotistical to accept a job at McDonald's when they have a degree? It has always been my opinion that any job is better than no job. If you need money, take what work you can. There's nothing that says you can't keep looking for a better job while you are working a holdover job. And, just like omitting mention of the degree, when you do apply for jobs that you really want, now or later, you don't have to put on your resume that you worked at McDonald's for three months while you were looking for better work.
For an employer there is a real cost associated with finding and hiring a new employee. The worry is that someone who is over-qualified is going to continue to be looking for higher-paid/higher-skilled work that is a better fit for them. That employee will also be generally less concerned about their future career path at the job they are over-qualified for, which can lead to reduced quality of work. In a customer-facing role at a retailer this can come through as a bad or passe attitude, which won't win over your customers.
No one's arguing (well, not much) that the employers don't have a decent reason for this. The problem here is that the incentives of employees and their employers are becoming more and more at odds with eachother.
That's exactly the problem. From what I've seen, the reason people don't want to hire overqualified applicants is because they know those people would be doing exactly what you are advising: coasting in the job for 3 months while waiting for something better to come along. There's nothing wrong with that from the point of view of the person, but what about the company? They spend time and money training someone, only to have the bail at the first sign of greener pastures? Where's the return on investment there? Employers tend to prefer to hire someone who at least seems like they might stick around long enough for them to get their money's worth.
As someone who has omitted their college degree and left off that I'm currently in a grad program, you try that in retail and they ask "well, what have you done all this time?" The time needs to be accounted for.
I've confessed to the time in college. Lost me a shot at the 4:30-9 (or so) shift at the local coffee place. The manager had been kind, friendly etc. before I said that.
To mix it up I've also said I'm in school now, hence some hours I can't work, and don't show the degree or say that it's for a grad program. Just let prospective employers think it must be undergrad.
Really since losing my job (started grad school part time before then) as tough as it is being "over qualified" people don't want students either. A number of places have said they require "full-time" availability even for part-time employees because the hours change week to week.
For those who say the jobs are out there and that Gen Y is lazy, try losing yours. It can suck. Bad.
Being overqualified refers to employers turning applicants down, not job seekers considering themselves too good for the job. It doesn't make sense for an employer to spend the time/money to get you trained and productive if it's obvious that you're going to leave as soon as possible.
Pizza delivery guys with PhD's used to be common in Bloomington, Indiana in the US. I'm not sure if that's still true, but if I were an employer there, I'd try to find out if I already knew their thesis adviser in order to get some clue about how long they'd be sticking around and if they were about to get a grant that would let them stop working.
