To be "a software developer," generally speaking? No, I don't think it's at all possible. Software development is a ginormous field and there's always more to learn. In my opinion, to be "over-qualified" is to have little, if anything, left to learn in a context, resulting in boredom and disengagement.
That said, one can be over-qualified for a specific dev role.
For example, as someone who's developed PHP applications for over a decade, I'd be way overqualified for a Junior PHP developer role. Also, while I could argue that I've got transferrable skills to warrant a higher title, I would arguably not be overqualified for a Junior Go developer role, since I don't really know Go, and I would really not be overqualified for Junior Machine Learning role, even if it used Python (a language that I do know).
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...).
My thoughts exactly. I think it's simply not possible to be overqualified as a software developer. The knowledge in software development inflates too quickly. Even if you are overqualified, just wait a year and do nothing, then you become underqualified because tech moves so fast
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
To be "a software developer," generally speaking? No, I don't think it's at all possible. Software development is a ginormous field and there's always more to learn. In my opinion, to be "over-qualified" is to have little, if anything, left to learn in a context, resulting in boredom and disengagement.
That said, one can be over-qualified for a specific dev role.
For example, as someone who's developed PHP applications for over a decade, I'd be way overqualified for a Junior PHP developer role. Also, while I could argue that I've got transferrable skills to warrant a higher title, I would arguably not be overqualified for a Junior Go developer role, since I don't really know Go, and I would really not be overqualified for Junior Machine Learning role, even if it used Python (a language that I do know).
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
My thoughts exactly. I think it's simply not possible to be overqualified as a software developer. The knowledge in software development inflates too quickly. Even if you are overqualified, just wait a year and do nothing, then you become underqualified because tech moves so fast