Meaning of "being qualified for a job"

[Acsenray]

What do you understand by the phrase, "I am qualified for this job"? Poll to follow

[Acsenray]

My understanding is that "qualified" means having the requisite skills, experience, ability, etc. Essentially it means, "I am able to do this job."

However, my Indian relatives understand "qualified" to mean holding the formal paperwork—degrees, certifications, licensures, endorsements, etc.—that some person in authority has declared it mandatory before a candidate can be considered for the job.

What do you understand by this?

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

US: both of the choices together is what I think of, depending on the specific job. If the job requires a degree or credential, then that trumps just having the skills.

[Acsenray]

In my view, you can have the degrees and credentials and still be unqualified, because you're just really awful.

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

In my view, you can have the degrees and credentials and still be unqualified, because you're just really awful.

That may be true, but that's not what I think of when I hear the phrase.

[Cunctator]

Australia: I'd say both are implied - skill/experience and qualifications.

[TriPolar]

US. I have the skills and experience necessary to successfully carry out the duties of the job. Papers don't guarantee that. But it's a perfectly reasonable measure in many areas.

[Hershele Ostropoler]

Either, skilled at the tasks the job entails, or hardly about to say otherwise in the cover letter.

[Voyager]

It depends on how old you are. We separate hiring into new college grads and experienced. NCGs are expected to only have the proper degree, and are not at all expected to know anything about the field or how jobs actually go. For experienced people the experience usually counts more than the degree.
If someone who has been in the workforce for 15 years starts bringing up their degree as a qualification, I'd be very suspicious.

[Nametag]

There are some jobs which require specific qualifications, but these usually have term of art associated with them: a member of the bar, a credentialed teacher, a Professional Engineer, a registered this or certified that. If a member of such a profession told me that he was "fully qualified," I'd assume he had the necessary education and that extra piece of paper. For most jobs, though, there is no such thing, and to say you're a qualified -- say, HR manager -- is to say you've got the education and experience necessary to do the job, with exactly what's necessary being ultimately in the eye of the beholder.

[Nava]

I view it as having the skills, which may require having the diploma (I am not hiring a "civil engineer" who doesn't hold a civil engineer degree, period; for many other things, a specific degree is nowhere near as important); ads tend to shorthand it to having the diplomas.

[Springtime for Spacers]

I would express the second option by "I have the qualifications neccessary for the job" To me, UK English, "I am qualified" is inclusive of having the papers and/or the experience and the skills.

[msmith537]

When I'm looking at a stack of resumes, how am I supposed to know you are "qualified" if you don't have the relevent degrees, certifications or work experience?

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

Originally Posted by msmith537

When I'm looking at a stack of resumes, how am I supposed to know you are "qualified" if you don't have the relevent degrees, certifications or work experience?

On many job ads I've seen it will say "if you don't hold the degree, explain why you are qualified". This would be written up in the cover letter.

[sandra_nz]

For me, it means that you either hold qualifications, or have relevant experience.

[Broomstick]

Originally Posted by msmith537

When I'm looking at a stack of resumes, how am I supposed to know you are "qualified" if you don't have the relevent degrees, certifications or work experience?

As a wild guess... not all jobs need degrees or certificates. If you're hiring someone to scrub toilets having hands and ability to spray the tile clean on the tile as opposed to, say, in their eyes might be all the qualifications needed.

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

Originally Posted by Broomstick

As a wild guess... not all jobs need degrees or certificates. If you're hiring someone to scrub toilets having hands and ability to spray the tile clean on the tile as opposed to, say, in their eyes might be all the qualifications needed.

My guess is that would be covered under "relevant degree" in the post.

[hogarth]

(Canadian)

It means both. A person with a professional designation but none of the required skills or experience is not qualified. A person with the necessary skills and experience but without the required professional designation is not qualified.

If I had to pick one, I'd go with the first, since all jobs require some measure of skills and experience. Nevertheless, a skilled, experienced doctor who is not licensed to practice medicine is not qualified for a job practicing medicine.

[Hello Again]

Originally Posted by msmith537

When I'm looking at a stack of resumes, how am I supposed to know you are "qualified" if you don't have the relevent degrees, certifications or work experience?

If you look a the poll, "degrees and formal paperwork" and "skills and experience" are two different choices.

I tend to agree that both encompass the term "qualifications." I consider a degree/certification a "minimum requirement" for jobs that require it. If someone says they are "qualified" I expect them to have the degree (where required) AND experience enough to do the job's actual duties.

[Qadgop the Mercotan]

I hire people for critical positions. First and foremost before they even get an interview, we see if they have the proper degree, license, and other necessary certifications and papers.

If they're qualified to interview for the position by providing the above proof, then I talk to them and see if they can actually do the job.

[Acsenray]

"Qualified" isn't a magic word here. Saying that someone is qualified doesn't automatically get someone a job. What I'm interested in is the mental concept people have about the word, whether it's more of a skills/abilities issue or more of a credentials issue. In other words, it's a linguistic question, not a management questin.

[RickJay]

Sorry, but the poll did not allow me to pick both formal qualification and skills/experience, and to me that's what "Qualified" means. "Qualified" means that you have the specific requirements to be in a job, and that includes skills, education, certifications, and training. To my way of thinking it's not a choice between two things. It's all of it.

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

"Qualified" isn't a magic word here. Saying that someone is qualified doesn't automatically get someone a job. What I'm interested in is the mental concept people have about the word, whether it's more of a skills/abilities issue or more of a credentials issue. In other words, it's a linguistic question, not a management questin.

Even by that definition it is still both. Being qualified is the sum total of many qualities that include both skills and credentials. The weight given to credentials vs skills depends on the specific job. For some, the credential is key, I'll teach you the skills. For others, formal credentialing is irrelevant, but you better have skills. For yet others its a different balance.

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by IvoryTowerDenizen

Even by that definition it is still both. Being qualified is the sum total of many qualities that include both skills and credentials. The weight given to credentials vs skills depends on the specific job. For some, the credential is key, I'll teach you the skills. For others, formal credentialing is irrelevant, but you better have skills. For yet others its a different balance.

But what interests me is for those for whom it is not both. My Indian relatives, for example, consider "qualified" to mean "properly credentialed," period. To them, skills and abilities constitute a separate factor to be considered, a necessary factor, yet discrete and separate from the "qualification" factor.

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

But what interests me is for those for whom it is not both. My Indian relatives, for example, consider "qualified" to mean "properly credentialed," period. To them, skills and abilities constitute a separate factor to be considered, a necessary factor, yet discrete and separate from the "qualification" factor.

Ok, you asked in a general way, so I answered for my perspective, as it seems many people share. Maybe the better question is "Do you consider credentials alone enough to be qualified for a job?", but the answer will probably still be complex.

[zoid]

Originally Posted by Qadgop the Mercotan

I hire people for critical positions. First and foremost before they even get an interview, we see if they have the proper degree, license, and other necessary certifications and papers.

If they're qualified to interview for the position by providing the above proof, then I talk to them and see if they can actually do the job.

This is my take as well.
You need both, the degree/license/ etc, AND the work experience.

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by zoid

This is my take as well.
You need both, the degree/license/ etc, AND the work experience.

Again, that's not the question. The question is a linguistic one, about the meaning of the word "qualified." I'm not asking what you "need" to get a job. I'm asking what makes you "qualified" for a job. That's two separate questions.

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

Again, that's not the question. The question is a linguistic one, about the meaning of the word "qualified." I'm not asking what you "need" to get a job. I'm asking what makes you "qualified" for a job. That's two separate questions.

I think people are answering the question. To be qualified (ie capable of being hired or dong the job), at times, both credentials and skills may be needed.

[Derleth]

When I hear that someone is 'qualified', I think that they have the skills needed to do the job, regardless of the degrees and certifications they hold; for example, a Kreplachistani immigrant who was a neurosurgeon back in Kreplachistan but who is driving a bus here because their credentials didn't transfer is still a qualified neurosurgeon assuming they're competent at that work. They just have a paperwork problem, that's all.

[Sternvogel]

It depends on the job description. Sometimes all you need is "5 or more years' experience in food service". Sometimes "any bachelor's degree in a STEM* field" is the sole requirement. However, if a hiring manager decides to only consider people who've been arrested for public urination, owned a Maserati, AND obtained an honorary doctorate from the University of Phoenix, then anyone who doesn't go three-for-three in those regards is not qualified to fill that particular opening.

If I have to give an either/or answer, however, I'll say ability is more important than documentation. My brother has a college degree, but no teaching certificate. Nevertheless, he has more knowledge, along with ability to impart it, than do many people who graduated from colleges of education.

* shorthand for "Science/Technology/Engineering/Mathematics", an acronym commonly bandied about at Purdue University and like-minded institutions

[Arabella Flynn]

Either or both, particularly if you considering that the paperwork needed is often not an engraved diploma or license, but just documentation that you have been doing something for X years, written down by someone else. The second is the more annoying one. Knowledge and skills-wise, I am perfectly capable of doing a lot of jobs whose hiring committee would trash my application without reading, because I don't have an official witness to the fact that I can do something. I understand their position -- they don't know me from Adam and want independent verification -- but I've run into it repeatedly, and it never ceases to frustrate me.