I think we can agree that the characterization of "over qualified" is popularly misused and sometimes simply misunderstood. Many times it's a convenient catch-all description thrown out instead of saying "I don't think they are a good fit for this job." The fit issue might be salary expectation.
Software development is a huge universe of complex puzzle solving opportunities. No one is over qualified. Most people are under qualified and still do a great job.
I think "under qualified" falls into the same traps you mention about "over qualified." I think it's even more of a catch-all name than over qualified (even if it's not as commonly used), because of the expansive nature of software development. And the thing with "under qualified" is that it's far more of a temporary state than "over qualified" in relation to any given role.
What makes a person "under qualified"? Generally, it's a lack of skill or experience in a given technology, language, etc., right? But those skills are easily learned and within a few weeks, the "under qualified" person now fits well into "qualified," and after a year or so, they're very much proficient. All that's really required of software developers that can't really be taught is the willingness to learn quickly and on the fly (and not be a complete asshole to work with). Everything else is trainable. "Under qualified," though, is essentially what people are told when the company doesn't want to invest in training the person filling the role to fill in any skills gaps (and then they wonder why they can't get anyone with the skills they want for what they want to pay...).
I think we can agree that the characterization of "over qualified" is popularly misused and sometimes simply misunderstood. Many times it's a convenient catch-all description thrown out instead of saying "I don't think they are a good fit for this job." The fit issue might be salary expectation.
Software development is a huge universe of complex puzzle solving opportunities. No one is over qualified. Most people are under qualified and still do a great job.
I think "under qualified" falls into the same traps you mention about "over qualified." I think it's even more of a catch-all name than over qualified (even if it's not as commonly used), because of the expansive nature of software development. And the thing with "under qualified" is that it's far more of a temporary state than "over qualified" in relation to any given role.
What makes a person "under qualified"? Generally, it's a lack of skill or experience in a given technology, language, etc., right? But those skills are easily learned and within a few weeks, the "under qualified" person now fits well into "qualified," and after a year or so, they're very much proficient. All that's really required of software developers that can't really be taught is the willingness to learn quickly and on the fly (and not be a complete asshole to work with). Everything else is trainable. "Under qualified," though, is essentially what people are told when the company doesn't want to invest in training the person filling the role to fill in any skills gaps (and then they wonder why they can't get anyone with the skills they want for what they want to pay...).
Agreed