Overqualified to be a Technician, Underqualified for Project Management

[Pablo Picasso]

Dear all,

I am trying to re-enter the telecoms / fibre-optic industry as a technician but am apparently suffering from being stuck between a rock and a hard place:

• My CV is "too academic" apparently (I have a university degree and taught English at a university). How does this make me "too academic"? I interpret this as code for "I can't relate to your diverse, non-traditional career path."
• This is then followed by a suggestion to aim at higher roles like project management. For most positions, I do not have the required telecoms/fibre-optic industry experience to apply for those project management roles. Most importantly, I want to work as a field technician, not be stuck in an office.
• My old telecoms experience is too dated apparently.
• My recently gained City & Guilds in fibre-splicing and copper cabling is ignored.

A bit of background:
1) I was originally a telecommunications technician 20 years ago - did that for 6 years.
2) I then went to University and gained a master's in chemistry.
3) I moved to Bangkok and taught English at a major university for 8 years.
4) I've just recently come back to the UK and gained a City & Guilds in fibre-splicing and copper cabling. I'm also self-studying CCNA (since everything is moving to IP these days).

I can't fathom what this fear of being "too academic" is about. I am NOT too academic in reality - I'm practical, knowledgable and can think on my feet due to my diverse experience.

I have noticed though, that quite a few "engineers" in the telecoms industry do not have a degree, are not particularly well-educated and can barely spell - this is more so for less professional, smaller companies.

Could it be that my CV is seen as being a poor fit because I DO possess these skills, and I am thus seen as being over-skilled and a poor fit to work alongside less well-educated workers? I couldn't care less to be honest because, as I've said above, I'm pretty practical and down-to-Earth.

It has been suggested to me that merely having a degree means that people in largely non-degreed industries will feel threatened, especially hiring managers. This sounds quite plausible really. But it is pretty sad, to be honest.

There are of course more professional companies with degree-qualified telecoms engineers, but such companies offer few entry-level positions. (I have applied to graduate programmes with large companies etc., but have had no luck so far).

There has been the suggestion I should "dumb down" my CV. This does not sound like a healthy long-term strategy though...

Thoughts?

P.S. I am 43, so this shouldn't be a huge barrier.

 

[Pablo Picasso]

It's pretty accurate actually. I'm 43. Many fibre installers are ex-army and quite young. Many telecoms technician positions tend to look for recent experience.

I'm thinking I'm missing "mid-level" experience, which I can't access without gaining an entry-level role splicing fibres or installing basic telecoms equipment due to my diverse background.

As for the "whys": I am steering well away from chemistry as I don't think there are enough opportunities in the field and feel the salaries are not great - apart from that, I more enjoy telecoms/electronics type work. I'm done with teaching as well as it's a dead-end career, which is why I've gotten out of it now.

 

[Pablo Picasso]

It is a bit of a conundrum, because, as you said, I'm going back to the start. The idea is to get an entry-level role as an "in" or "foot in the door", and then progress quickly to a mid-level or higher engineering position, which I could definitely do - the problem is getting "in" somehow.

 

[Pablo Picasso]

I assume there's no such thing as voluntary work in the field you're looking at? Have you tried firing off some speculative CVs explaining why you want to do the role you're looking for? If you're applications don't scream burning passion for the job, then my question would go back to why does he want this role?

Voluntary work seems to be non-existent due to cost, safety and time issues involved. It is a possibility though.
I need to fire off more speculative applications though and clarify my intended career path and why I'm pursuing it - that's a good idea.

 

[Pablo Picasso]

Where do you live?

I'm in Glasgow.

 

[Pablo Picasso]

You have your prince 2 for project management right? It's practically mandatory here and CV's are immediately consigned to the bin if you don't hold it.
https://www.axelos.com/best-practice-solutions/prince2

Hi 69 Dude,

You may have misread my post, but in my thread title I mentioned I was "Underqualified for Project Management", and wrote that I am trying to re-enter the telecoms / fibre-optic industry as a technician. I then went on to say that I do not have the industry experience to apply for project management roles, which were suggested to me by hiring managers. This is the reason why I am applying for entry-level technician roles and not project management roles.

If you want to ignore an IT management path and be real IT then you have to do your time, even with a CCNA we will flat out deny any applicant without 3 years experience at a lesser level like a Service Desk, Telecoms, Desktop or Front Line Support team.

The sector I'm aiming for is telecommunications engineering installation, faulting, maintenance and testing, rather than IT or networking. Most roles I'm looking at are either fibre-optic splicing or telecoms apparatus maintenance & faulting (e.g., fibre/copper links and transmission systems). The entry paths within these roles don't involve customer service or helpdesk roles, but rather field installation and maintenance roles. There is some crossover with networking due to more and more kit using IP, so the CCNA is just helpful as technicians sometimes need to have some basic knowledge of networking.

You should also avoid slagging people up for not having a degree at any point during working in IT, before/after interviews etc. You're not better than them and they probably have £20k worth of certs and accreditations a piece.

I'm not sure where you drew those inferences from because there's nothing in my post that criticises non-degreed workers. I did criticise some people's dreadful spelling, but that's not surprising considering I taught English for 9 years. What I did say is that others have suggested to me that having a degree is often perceived as threatening by people in largely non-degreed industries. That's not something which is particularly hard to believe, but the main issue was how to overcome the perception of being overqualified, or "too academic" in order to get a "foot in the door" for an entry-level technician's role.

 

[Pablo Picasso]

Ah I was going to suggest a couple of companies but ones based in Bournemouth and the other near me.

Thanks for the offer. It's a bit far south for me though - family are up here in Scotland. I'm mainly just bouncing ideas as it's hard to get an objective view of what might be wrong with my job strategy.

Loftie was right on the money I think with the comments about a stop gap perception, switching career paths, not being a good "fit" and the potential age issues. That's helped a lot too.
Cheers.

 

[Pablo Picasso]

On what basis are you concluding that you're under qualified for project management roles after hiring managers have suggested you apply for such roles?

Mainly because I felt those hiring managers (technician managers) were making assumptions and weren't taking into account the specific background skills and experience that most project management roles seem to require in telecoms.

That's why I was starting to have the feeling I was stuck between a rock and hard place - overqualified for one role, and underqualified for another.

It may be worthwhile to start looking more closely at project roles as I know that I don't necessarily have to meet every job requirement on the list to have a chance.

It's a good point you make though - maybe they had good reasons for their suggestions that I'm overlooking.

 

[Pablo Picasso]

They're probably more reluctant to hire someone who has spent several years doing something completely different and now wants to come back and do something entry level... you're perhaps (rightly or wrongly) seen as someone who might not stick around for long.

Yes, I get the feeling that those are the main issues that need addressing. In the meantime, I'm doing driving work to build up funds for more short courses, and I'll just have to keep persistently knocking on doors in the meantime until one opens.

 

[Pablo Picasso]

Going after both CCNA and something practical is a red flag for me.

When I interview someone for an engineering role, and they tell me they are pursuing CCNA makes me feel like they don't know what they want.

What is your on the tools experience with? Copper or fibre? I'm assuming as you've been away from it, fusion splicing is something that is quite new to you? It's a very over-saturated market at the moment, with a lot of contractors out there, and speed is king and that's what pays the money, there are a lot of agencies out there which can get you contract work, however, expect travel.

To be honest with you, if you want to re-enter the telecoms game, expect 12-14hr days incl. travel. Is that something you'd be interested in? It's the reason it's a younger guys game.

Project Management within the industry is the natural progression, you need a lot of experience for it however, I'd say around 9 Years of hands-on experience, if you can master it (the transition from cutters to keyboard) then you can make a strong wage, anywhere from 35k - 60k+ location dependant.

I would take a strong look at what you want to do. If you want to remain on the tools for a bit, without travel and long hours, it may be worth looking at BT/Kelly but they're not great places to work.

e; Also, having a degree isn't a bad thing, but you're up against people with a vast amount more experience.

Source; I'm in the industry

Hi there. Thanks for the tips and suggestions.

The specific roles I'm aiming for are a) rail telecoms engineering technician (installation, testing or maintenance) or b) fibre-splicer. The longer-term goal would be senior technician field roles. Rail telecoms will incorporate fibre-splicing more and more with time, so it's relevant to that sector as well. Some splicing is outsourced in the sector, e.g., Kelly, but some work is done internally. I have to aim for at least two areas as I need to keep my options open, but rail telecoms is definitely the most preferable choice.

The CCNA has some significance to my target areas, but it's not a major aim and can be left off the CV. As IP is becoming more and more relevant in rail telecoms, it would be a useful qualification for getting a foot in the door - it would become much more relevant at senior tech level positions too as they tend to have some overlap with networking.

My on the tools experience is telecoms installation, maintenance and faulting (copper installation, CCTV, PA systems, line faulting, and general maintenance). Fibre-wise, my experience is in basic maintenance/faulting of transmission systems (PDH, SDH). Splicing is new. I've just completed a City & Guilds in fibre-splicing and copper cabling.

Rail sector telecoms would be the first choice. Conditions and pay are quite good. It would definitely be preferable to long-hours as a fibre splicer. I cannot relocate outside of Scotland, but 10-12 hour shifts fibre-splicing would be fine.

As you say, I'm up against far more experienced people in fibre-splicing and there seems to be no openings for splicing assistants. What's the best way to get an "in" as an assistant in fibre-splicing?

 

[Pablo Picasso]

This is the problem. You're not going for the right role. Your trying to do a labour intensive job (pulling cables) with a academic past and a professional outlook in the future? Try getting a job in the IT department of a school where you will be doing a mix of work if you don't want to be sat at a desk all day. Or desktop support. Otherwise take a hard look at what you actually want in life and focus on that.

In the sector I'm aiming for (rail telecoms, where I used to work) there would be practical work at the start as an installer - as you say, there's a conflict with getting an "in" with my academic background. But there are also a range of mid-level roles that are still primarily field-based but more professional (e.g., senior tech/tech support). Those mid-levels roles would be far easier to get within the industry. I'm not sure if fibre-splicing has similar progression opportunities as my primary experience (where I did my apprenticeship) was rail telecommunications.

I've never considered desk jobs really - prefer being out and about.

 

[Pablo Picasso]

Don't have any experience in the rail side of things as the customer base I deal with is primarily SME/Education.

Regarding assistants, there isn't really a requirement for assistants in my experience, it's a one man job to fusion splice.

A lot of decent ideas and advice so far. What it all seems to highlight is that I am indeed stuck in the middle.

The main aim would be to get a mid-level position in rail telecoms (or even fibre-splicing), and working on the tools would be time-limited “stage-work” to get current rail telecoms/fibre experience under my belt. There does not seem any way around this.

My inclination is to apply to more professional contractors and companies that have more of a bias towards education and professional development as they may see my degree as an asset and recognise the need to spend a brief period of time at entry-level work in order to progress to a position that reflects my age and academic qualifications.

 

[Pablo Picasso]

Just to summarise the issues that have come up:
1. 3 career path switches is off-putting to employers.
2. My CV is seen as “too academic”.
3. I’m overqualified at degree level for an entry-level role.
4. I’m seen to be looking for a stop-gap.
5. I’m seen as too well educated for entry-level jobs e.g., pulling/installing cables = bad 'fit'.
6. I’m too old (43) for entry-level jobs that mostly younger people are doing.
7. Grad programmes > too old, not a recent grad.
8. Companies are reluctant to hire someone who’s been doing something completely different and now wants to come back at entry-level.
9. Seen as someone who won’t stick around for long.

 

[Pablo Picasso]

OK so first of all I like your approach on here. You have collated feedback and succinctly summarised it whilst also coming across as quite articulate in some of your other posts. The way you have presented your case I can see that you probably are actually suited for the types of roles you desire. You are not a complete novice with no practical experience, and also bring a breadth of experience from different walks of life.

The problem is that you don't get to type away on a forum when trying to get your foot in the door.
Do you have any old contacts you can lean on?

There is an anecdotal example I can give you. A good friend of mine fell into a similar space in that he had a degree, did some office work, went off to study again abroad... and then a while after returning decided he wanted to become a plumber. He actually removed his degree from his CV in the end because it was difficult to get taken seriously. I'm loathe to do that sort of thing, but I guess you have to ask yourself, is a Masters in Chemistry really going to be seen as a desirable attribute for these type of roles, or will it just start raising annoying questions and getting people thinking about your motivations?

I suppose reflecting on how I review CVs (different industry) I do notice things like people who have 'randomly' jumped around between careers and it sows seeds of doubt about what their motivations are, how long will they stick it out here before getting bored and wanting to go off and try something new etc. You need to be able to project a career pathway and demonstrate that if a company invests in training you in the latest 'telecoms stuff' that that is an investment that will pay off and you won't decide it is time to teach English to Mexican kids.

Hi Hangtime,

Thanks for giving a perspective on my summary points.

I'm actually just back from an interview with a very big UK rail organisation and got through it fairly well.
I was prepared and was able to answer most of the competency-based questions and was able to clarify the career changes well enough.

At the end of the interview, they did seem to have some reservations about my being more suitable for a tech support role rather than a technician and I countered it by explaining that the technician role was a gateway to further positions and I was more than happy to work my way up. Mid-level roles like tech-support don't come up often and usually require the technician level experience, so it still seems that entry-level roles are my best bet.

 

[Pablo Picasso]

Being 45 and just been served redundancy notice yesterday I can appreciate. 4 years ago I was in the same boat. Then my CV is peppered with technical ideas - drones, image processing and quantum computing (although I did manage the last one as part of a company hackathon ).

Back then - I switched from technical side of product management to P&L product management, however after a year the CEO got the boot and everyone was made redundant as they refocused on their core company strength and not building into a new business. Leaving me with a 1 year P&L and every other job being seen as "technical" (being accountable for presales, product to operation) by recruiters that do not understand.

I took a "step down" back to technical with a larger organisation (230,000+ people) specifically for experience in the larger organisation. The role I'm in now I'm technically accountable for our 90+ people (across many disciplines including project managers, business analysts etc). My day typically revolves around financial and optimising things to make the team more successful. I am the go-to person to solve the impossible (just part of the job rather than a brag).

When I apply for the next role I can no longer apply for "technical" roles. It's more management, possibly CIO/CTO. I like product management.. but I like owning the product if I'm going to obsess about it, the customers and the people in the team. We have a senior product manager and she freely admits I can do her role too however that's not what the recruiters will see based on my "technical" job title.

So what was the purpose of that ... You're focusing on what you aren't.

You have;
* experience
* you are someone that people come to when they have nowhere else to go to solve the issue.
* I suspect that you're naturally steady given a changing environment and able to cope with that.
* Adding an self-study for project management would indicate that you're serious and you can sell that as a team management and delivery. It would demonstrate that you can plan, execute and deliver - it's also something that recruiters "understand".

I would - define a direction, ignore the past and start building towards that.

Thanks for the feedback. Yes, it's too easy to focus on trying to 'fix' the things that I'm not.
I am a 'go to' person which fits well with tech support roles, but I need to bridge the gap between technician and tech support level experience - something I can start building on whilst still plugging away at entry-level technician roles.
I could say the same for project management - need to start building towards that.

So, it leaves me with three options:
1) Keep applying for entry-level roles as gateway positions for a long-term career in the company.
2) Upskill technically to position myself for tech support roles
3) Upskill for project management roles.

No 1) is practically possible because I'm doing it now with various applications on the go, but no.2 and no.3 require either time self-studying or funds which I don't have. I do have some time outside of job applications though, so I can at least do a little self-study.

Project management and tech support are different directions essentially and I'd prefer tech support.
So it leaves me with continuing to apply for entry-level technician roles, any tech support roles that might be attainable and upskilling whilst working in ANY job in the meantime.

 

[Pablo Picasso]

* you are someone that people come to when they have nowhere else to go to solve the issue.
* I suspect that you're naturally steady given a changing environment and able to cope with that.
* Adding an self-study for project management would indicate that you're serious and you can sell that as a team management and delivery. It would demonstrate that you can plan, execute and deliver - it's also something that recruiters "understand".

Hi Nick, and just to add, you hit the same point the interviewer noticed today: he said, I'd be ideal as the tech support guy that people came to to solve impossible problems - I just wish I could solve this one!

 

[Pablo Picasso]

Its a tough one, im almost in the same boat - but its about being patient and finding the right employer\recruiter. One employer says im worth 20k, one says 38k, one says "get this certificate" and youre worth 50k, one says 265 a day, one says 345 a day etc

Ive learnt that if i put down all my skills and experience (ie tailoring to me and current role), im "not suitable". But if i tailor to the job spec, i do better.

*edit* apologies didnt realise old post

Yeah, it does seem that it's down to finding the right employer - or even becoming self-employed.

My understanding of the root cause of my unemployment has really sharpened between when I originally posted this and now.

Office Roles vs On The Tools Roles
A few people suggested more office-based roles, e.g., project management as being "more professional" as a future outlook, rather than my interest in "staying on the tools": I thought about it for a while, but now I know it is completely wrong for me: I spent 3 weeks recently, working in an office-based IT placement recently. The result? I felt like a CAGED ANIMAL and hated every second of being stuck in an office in front of a screen! I'd rather be out and about working with 'things'. Office work is far too sedentary and unhealthy IHMO. So that's that issue settled once and for all! I need a technical job, working with things, that involves outdoor and mobile work.

The Career Switching Issue
Basically, through feedback from a good few employers/recruiters, the consensus is that it's not really the issue - perhaps an eyebrow-raiser, but not much more. The core issue is pretty simple: NO RECENT EXPERIENCE. Also, education doesn't seem to hold much weight with most recruiters and many employers (some exceptions of course) in the current market/climate. It also seems to be seen negatively by more than a few employers for various reasons (e.g., feel threatened, overqualified, poor fit etc). So, the key is to get ANY experience, in any context, e.g., placement/work for free/shadow experience workers etc.

Going Back to Step One Career whilst being Generally Massively Overqualified and Older than other Technicians
The comments that touched on this were really on the money as they sum up the general issues. I was a telecoms installation/maintenance and faulting technician in the past - it's a great job, but I am also interested in any of the fields cognate with electronic engineering and telecoms. The trouble is, as has been suggested, I'm seen as 'too academic' and just overqualified for tech positions in these fields. This is compounded by not having RECENT EXPERIENCE in the role and so means I look like a misfit. This has been the consistent experience I've had with almost all employers and recruiters. At least 3 have said outright that my CV 'scares people'. It really isn't that scary, or at least wouldn't be to the vast numbers of alumni in the UK - it's just scary for the types of employers in the fields I'm looking at.

Sooner or later I'll find the right employer, hopefully in telecoms or fibre-optics where they will be willing to take a chance, recognise that I could quickly move up to a senior technician position and get me started. It all goes back to getting a foot in the door...which ain't easy as an ex-pat who knows no-one...

 

[Pablo Picasso]

If you're getting feedback that your CV "scares people" (seems very odd tbh..) then perhaps tailor your CV to the role you're applying for.

If you don't want office work but are interested in project management then perhaps look at a different career change - pretty sure there are plenty of people involved in some form of project management in the construction industry for example who frequently spend time on various sites... perhaps quantity surveyor etc..

This career change might well require some additional qualification/education etc.. though you've probably gotta figure out what you want to do first. No such thing as overqualified when you're getting to professional roles.

Yes, tailoring to the role means deprecating or deleting qualifications/skills that aren't considered relevant to the industry, e.g., my master's in chemistry and previous position as a university lecturer on my CV was seen as scary by the last manager who interviewed me for a rail technician role - he said he was worried because he couldn't "employ some potentially eccentric professor in an engineering environment as they might not be a good fit". I'm not an eccentric professor, but a down-to-earth hands-on guy - the real issue was not having recent industry experience.

Construction, for example, has no relation to anything I've ever done (background is scientific, electronic/telecoms/fibre engineering), so that's definitely out as is project management...it's a technical job, tools based, preferably fibre-optics or telecoms that I'm aiming for.

I agree that qualifications are important, but since I have just spent £2000 on getting a City & Guilds in Communications Cabling, which is the industry standard for fibre splicers in the UK, and have had continuous knockbacks due to lack of recent experience, there is no way that I see qualifications as being remotely useful in this context. Nearly every fibre-optic technician I've spoken to got their job through connections and getting a foot in the door. It's experience of any kind that gets jobs from many employer's viewpoints as a lack of experience is seen as a risk. Highly qualified is fine for professional roles, but the issue I'd highlighted previously is that high-level qualifications are ignored without recent, relevant experience, as my recent City & Guilds adventure shows... In the current market, there are an abundance of recently-qualified, unemployed people, who are now in debt and can't get a job due to lack of experience...

Just have to keep plugging away at getting a foot in the door....