How is it that an applicant can somehow be both over qualified and under qualified? It’s a question I’ve been asking myself more and more as I continue applying to and being rejected for jobs since being laid off in February 2025. In that time, I’ve received a lot of (mostly automated) rejection emails, and some of them paint an interesting story.

“Unfortunately, we will not be moving forward with your application as we are in search of candidates whose skills and experience more closely align with our needs.”

“While we found your resume and achievements impressive, we feel this role is too junior for a person with your experience.”

“After careful consideration, the hiring team determined that you would be better suited to a more senior role, which is not available at this time.”

“Our recruiting team carefully reviewed your background and experience and, unfortunately, we won’t be moving forward with your application.“

The positions in question shared a title and, aside from the specific phrasing used in each of the job descriptions, had near identical required qualifications. They shared educational requirements, required years of experience, tech stack, team leadership experience, key responsibilities, and more.

I’ve been mentally referring to this phenomenon where a person is simultaneously deemed both over qualified and under qualified for what is ostensibly the same job with different employers as Schrödinger’s Job Applicant. It is not until the applicant is viewed by a prospective employer that anyone can know if they are over qualified or under qualified in a given moment. In fact, the person exists as both over and under qualified until such time that they are viewed, and they return to this state again after having been viewed.

There are of course many factors at play here. For one, the same title often can and does carry different responsibilities from employer to employer. It also can’t be overlooked that on the neverending quest to increase profits, many companies ask employees to wear multiple hats, which is likely reflected in the hiring manager’s expectations for a given role.

There’s just one problem: it’s becoming increasingly difficult for applicants to navigate the job market with this mixed messaging, especially if they are taking care to apply to roles for which they meet or exceed the required qualifications (ask me how I know). Even when an applicant is very selective about applying only to roles where they exceed all required qualifications, they still stand a reasonable chance of being told they aren’t up to snuff.

Some of this could be mitigated by employers having more consistent benchmarks for what a given job title requires and entails (unlikely, unfortunately). Still more could be avoided by employers getting rid of job descriptions that read like a wish list for an industry-specific unicorn (also unlikely). But changes like that across industries would almost certainly necessitate more robust labor laws, and something tells me that’s not on the menu for the immediate future.

As usual, I don’t know what realistically can be done at scale until a lot of other things change. For now, I guess I will continue on in Schrödinger’s application hell while I keep applying for work.