Overqualified and Qualified for nothing- curse of the PhD?

One of the phrases that makes my blood boil is 'overqualified'. Surely there should be no such thing? because all skills are transferable, and in a culture where often we're expected to both have 10 years experience for 5 years experience salary and/or expected to have experience in order to get experience, this all seems a futile distinction.

Recently at an event with Research Development staff, several confirmed what many of us PhD's have lost suspected: they won't employ PhDs in non-academic roles. And yet they get many applications. dismissing PhDs as 'not interested really, just wanting to keep a foot in the door' may well be true for some, but many PhDs do seek what we'd call 'alt-ac' careers (alternative academic careers-still within the sector but not in traditional academic roles) Many for practical reasons-a lack of academic jobs-others because they want to. Some are lucky enough to get more senior roles straight away where the PhD level skill is appreciated, but what of the others, or those with no previous employment experience (having gone straight through education to the PhD) they are perfect for the lower grade jobs, gaining the day to day skills they missed on the way to the PhD but still making use of the specialist skills from the PhD.

The same should apply outside academia. Just because I have a high-level degree doesn't make me over-qualified for the job.

BUT on the flip side spending 4 years doing a PhD doesn't mean 4 years where I wasn't gaining employment skills.

To me these are the two key elements for PhDs looking elsewhere for work. Firstly we're great at being 'bottom of the pile' and 'learning our trade' if we're applying for a job in  a new sector we will learn from the bottom up, and we may even do it a bit faster, with a bit more creative flair from our higher degree.

But at the same time, don't ignore the transferable skills we have from the PhD. Those 4 years aren't 'time out' they're time gathering a new set of skills and developing existing ones. They're time working independently and part of a team (don't tell me that isn't on your recruitment specifications) it's time doing highly focused, highly detailed work. It's time networking until it kills us, it's time spent balancing the most high-strung of personalities (frankly if we can wrangle students and professors equally well, we can do anything a company throws at us). It's time writing, developing, adapting, re-drafting and honing writing skills for many audiences at once. These just off the top of my head are things I've read countless times on application forms. So why then just because this skill comes from a PhD would you discount this?

And that goes for us as applicants too. The PhD is not an employment gap, it's a career development. And we all need to shift our perceptions on that front.

Our PhDs teach us to look at things in a new way. How about we all start looking at employment outside a PhD differently?

And employers? If we've left academia, and we get a job we like, we're loyal fiercely so, and grateful for the opportunity.