On a positive note: Maybe they're subtly saying 'aim higher [Truean], because this job isn't where you[r potential and skills] might be happy'
Sometimes I wonder if Tiruin lives in the same world as the rest of us
* Tiruin stabs Dutchling.
...Then does the same to self.
>_>
Now y'all think I'm not realistic. Woo.
*sigh*
I'm losing faith in you people.
In the best of ways, I guess. But... yeah. Speaking from someone that's been going through business courses for the last bit, and have been talking to a fair number of business owners and high-ish level corporate employees, overqualified usually means one of three things, in practice: One: The person(s) hiring don't want you after their job. Two: They don't want to pay you what your skills are worth. Or Three: They don't expect you'll stick around very long (i.e. they're going to have to spend money on recruitment and training again in the relatively near future). So they don't hire you, because they don't want internal competition, don't want to pay you a fair wage, and don't want someone that
can go on to better things (because they will, and that means higher costs for the business). And that's all just... business, barring the first.
The chances of them caring whether you'll be happy at the job is
very slim, unless they expect it to impact your performance (which
is something employers are paying more attention to, but it's still a very marginal concern compared to stuff like bottom line and personal job security) to a meaningful degree, which... a majority still don't.
World'd be a nicer place if the folks telling people they're overqualified
actually thought the person in question would be unhappy on the job, though. It's a good perspective to try to keep and socially propagate around, especially if it were actually backed up by action instead of just empty words. Anyone telling someone they're overqualified should have three other companies on hand to recommend the prospective employee to.