Over-educated?
 

Of course as a Professor I can speak from experience ;)

I was wondering what people thought about this, can you be over-educated?

I heard a commentator use the term on the radio the other day as a negative attribute of certain social types.

I think too much time in the ivory tower can lead to intellectual snobbery and elitism (most our Prime Ministers and half our MP's here in the UK seem to have come from Oxbridge).

It can play against you in the job market if you're over-qualified for a particular job as well, but I'm more interested in whether over-education exists as a social and cultural phenomenon and what are its' effects?

In no more than 2000 words please ;)

I think you're over-educated if you don't use the knowledge you've gained for a worthwhile purpose. Most of the 'well' educated people I know don't seem to lord their knowledge over anyone though. In fact, many are highly qualified in their field and yet you'd have a perfectly good time with them down at the local pub on a sunday arvo - which is my definition of a 'good bloke/chick', meaning that they're still down to earth enough to enjoy the simple things and to use their knowledge for good and not evil. ;)

I'd probably have to consider myself over-educated for the job I currently have. I probably didn't need 3 1/2 years at uni to be a full time mum and wife. :) It did broaden my horizons though, and I have a different perspective on things now, but that could just be because I'm older too. It's hard to know in retrospect because you simply can't do the experiment.

Some people who have a high degree of education can be a pain in the arse to be around though, so I can certainly understand any social commentator saying so. Why are they so annoying though? I think mostly because they have a need to make sure everyone around them knows they're the 'smartest' so they're always blowing hard. What would I know though. I'm still an undergraduate. :D

I don't believe I'm over-educated. I do have an advanced degree in my field, however, I am quite forthright about admitting that I learned nothing of practical use in my degree program, and that I have been taught everything I know from direct experience. If only hanging out with crazy people conferred the extra letters I'm entitled to after my name, I would have saved a good bit of money and time.


Now, I have been accused of being a know-it-all. Nothing pisses people off more than when you can back that one up, though. Like by running the board while watching Jeopardy.

Over-education is the state of having disproportionately more education than experience, to the point of not being able to accurately apply your education.

(23)

(edit +7: accurately might not be the best word.)

Agreed. When looking at intellect versus common sense, I consider common sense to be the ability to apply one's intellect to resolve a practical situation. This is where experience and well roundedness come in. Common sense may be present at many levels of intellect. I consider the term "over-educated" to be a misnomer for "under-experienced."

"Over-qualified," as in the job market, is separate consideration. There are valid reasons not to give an over-qualified person a job (e.g. they may leave shortly if a more challenging position becomes available elsewhere). It depends on the individual, their personal situation, and the skill of the interviewer to determine if they are getting a bargain; or, asking for trouble.

I think Sam Clements said it best, I try not to let my education get in the way of my learning.

I can see somebody being over-qualified for the job they're doing. Or over-educated for the lifestyle/world they're in. If somebody is living in an environment where nobody else shares that level of education it could conceivably be a divisive or isolating thing.

Usually though, I think people use that term when they mean something else. Like NoBoxes said: a misnomer for under-experienced. What's being commented on isn't so much the high level of education, but the low level of competancy in other areas of life (like social interaction, or practical living skills).

I don't believe it is truly possible to be over-educated. Unless one adds to that sentence 'for x'.

I can't be over-educated, having quit full time education at the age of 16. However I constantly find myself overly-intellectual for my lifestyle/ world.

I would change that if I could. On the one hand I wish I had the same group of people around me IRL that I do here. I'd sit and smile in the corner and listen and try to learn when I was out of my depth. I am hungry for knowledge and if it means I sometimes soak up trivia that's okay, as long as I trust the source and/ or can verify it.

But part of me thinks I'd really be happier with a lower IQ. I'm not claiming I am a genius, that I would stand out in any normal line-up, but I have so often felt isolated by being bored by conversation. I got on great with my co-workers when I was an evening working shelf stacker. But two or three times a night I would be called deep or weird or told I think too much. I laughed it off - another team member was vain, another obsessed with getting pregnant again, it was just my quirk. We got on well, but partly I think because we only ever spent 5 hours together.

In more highly skilled jobs it has happened too. I've been deferred to when I don't deserve it, and treated like I'm some sort of Ultimate Mind. Sadly, the one place I felt I fit in intellectually, I am no longer employed by. And even then, these people were better educated than me and certainly moved in higher social circles (being horrified to find I thought Weatherspoon's served a good meal for example).

I dunno. I think I'm under-educated for my brain, and just a misfit for my social class. I'll never walk with Kings nor lose the common touch. Perhaps in the end it comes down to self-consciousness.

Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.

Some people do let their academic qualifications substitute for wisdom, judgment, or just horse-sense. This is often to their detriment.

Some people on the other side of the educational divide suffer from a condition commonly referred to as 'sour grapes'.

I don't think you can ever be overly educated. If it turns one into a snobbish elitist then that's a separate character trait.

There is always more to learn, and no education is wasted or too much.

imho

I can relate to that.

I'm with Shawnee. Who cares how much education you have. Good Will Hunting gives a good perspective.

"See, the sad thing about a guy like you is in 50 years you're gonna staht doin some thinkin on your own and you're gonna come up with the fact that there are two certaintees in life. One, don't do that. And Two, you dropped a hundred and fifty grand on a fuckin education you coulda got for a dollah fifty in late chahges at the public library "

Education doesn't determine anything but social status, how you hold yourself and how you apply that knowledge are completely different topics though.

what they said. Except for the Latin bit, because that's not a nice thing to say about her.

;)

I've never completed what is considered even the very lowest level of formal education.

Bravo Shawnee! Now the book I was reading last night is safe! Ha!

Which just goes to show that formal education and knowledge/wisdom are not one and the same.

You cannot be overly educated, but there is no doubt you can be under educated.

Absolutely.

I would bet Flint searches knowledge on his own, if not formally educated, with a thirst some college students would find admirable.

Though I would ask for your definition of no graduation from formal education if you don't mind, Flint.

Well done SG. You are highly educated in my eyes. :p

This reminds me of yesterday when I discussed what someone was studying, and I had more interest in it than they did. For some reason that bothered me a little. You can buy an education, but not a passion for knowledge? I don't know, maybe that's why it bothered me. I'm still not sure.

I see that all the time. Some students are stimulated by subjects that others find so totally boring. I was an assoc prof for 6 years and it was amazing how different subjects could just set people off like a light switch. Others needed to be jabbed with a sharpe stick to get them to do the studies they needed to get by. Who knows, human nature I guess.

I dropped out of high school, and later went back to a work-at-your-own pace high school, but left before finishing the required credits. Then I dual-enrolled in a junior college, but lost interest and left to pursue other interests.

Later, after stumbling into a computer career, I got my GED and re-enrolled in junior college. Started on a two-year networking degree. My plan was to finish something before looking for a new job.

Later on I realized that none of these credits would transfer to a University for a full degree, so I started taking core curriculum. Around this time the recruiters started calling me. I found some certificates I could acquire quickly.

But, before I had a chance to even finish my certificates, my dream job opened up. Now I am entirely too busy to do any academic studying--however, the job is teaching me more than any college degree ever could (and in fact, there is no degree available for my field.)

So, basically, I have a GED.



I do plan to finish up on some of this stuff, some day.

That goes right to who Einstein was. As Hilbert noted, Einstein was a terrible student. But his passion was inspired by an objective.

Einstein desperately wanted to understand the relationship between the various forces in nature. His frustration was in never learning how to integrate gravity into an otherwise spectaculor accomplishment. To accomplish, he had to be taught some of the math that he may have otherwise known if he was a better student. (Unlike the myths in "Good Will Hunting", much of that stuff is not intuitive. It must be taught or learned.)

Once Einstein knew what he wanted to accomplish, then he was inspired. At one point working so hard that his health was at risk.

The irony is that, with a 4 year degree, you may have been "too qualified" for that same job. It says much about how we rate the value and capabilities of people. When how much you cost is more important than what you can do.

I think it's nonsense. Education is never wasted. Learning is one of the joys of life. People's attitudes can be a problem, but that's not the fault of education itself. It's because people are jerks.

Learning is great. But when it becomes an excuse for not living in the real world and taking responsibility for yourself, then it loses most of its value.

There are rare individuals who don't embrace formal education as we see it but who self educate to an impressive degree...that's a gift if you ask me. You're smarter 'n crap...lol

Eh, the "too qualifed" argument is only usually brought up if one plays their qualifications like an ass. People overly educated for a certain job should also be smart enough to know when not to play the "I'm so smart" card.

Amen Cloud! :notworthy:

Or it may identify a boss who fears employees with too much knowledge. I have seen it both ways. He is too educated; therefore will not stay. Or he does not have the sufficient degrees. None should be a reason if the person is being judged based upon abilities. Unfortunately one is strongly encouraged to play qualifications like an ass because that also works.

Yeah, not really. Most job listings for this position describe a superman with a list of accomplishments it would take three lifetimes to amass. I manage to get by on the "or equivalent experience" clause (having proof that I have done, and can do, the actual job). I think my current employer understands that how much I am costing them is directly related to how much I can do for them, as opposed to whether I've got a degree that they can cover their ass with. They're not saving any money by going with me, if that's what you mean.

I have a Master's in Education and I am changing diapers on 2 and 3 year olds... at least it gets me a bit better pay, almost enough to live decently on. But the education is worthless to do anything but teach and I am starting to really hate dealing with kids and parents and stupid rules and regulations coming from all directions

Here's the problem with school. What gets you ahead in school almost never gets you ahead in other settings. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with this, unless you don't realize it and think you're going to succeed by beating other people upside the head with your Phi Beta Kappa key.

Man, you people went to some shitty schools.

One of the things I love about teaching music at the university is that the relationship between the academy and the craft of music has a long history of mutual appreciation. The things that make a stellar 1st violin in a university symphony are the same things that make a stellar 1st violin in any symphony.

As a result, I feel like we graduate students who have been well trained and well equipped in things that actually matter to the career they've chosen. As an added benefit, they embrace that training with curiosity and passion - nobody becomes a music major because they're parents made them, or because it's a fallback degree, but they really wanted to study accounting.

That said, one of the mantras around our school of music is "Stop thinking like a music student, and start thinking like a musician." A very useful reminder.

To be fair though smooth, I think music and other true arts are a bit different to other degrees such as law or accounting for example.

It's a different world.