Heavenly-Sword wrote recently about the issue of “over-qualification” of graduates, resulting in companies being less than willing to hire certain graduates who are deemed to be holding qualifications that are too high for the job that is being advertised. He thinks that it is a very stupid idea, which I somewhat agree with. Maybe there are some employers that are really that stupid to have such reasoning, but I think that real reason in using the term “over-qualification” is just plain discrimination.

Employers just don’t want to have to pay more money (or face the potential of having to pay more money) to get the same job done. Job discrimination against those with post-graduate degrees is similar to job discrimination against older workers. Employers just want to pay the lowest dollar. One can advertise to death how much knowledge one has (in the case of over-qualification) or how much experience one has (in the case of age discrimination), but if the company does perceive the marginal utility of such people to be less than that of someone with lower qualification or younger age, it’s just too bad.

Money aside, to justify the discrimination, some employers like to hold certain assumptions that might or might not be true. Employers assume that they have to pay a premium for someone with a post-graduate degree over someone with just a bachelors, or they assume that those with post-graduate degrees are more likely to “jump ship” if a better opportunity arises. Such warped thinking is seriously laughable. Whether the company has to pay a premium or not is not dependent on whether the would-be employee wants a premium. If the company is not agreeable to paying a premium, and the would-be employee is not agreeable to accepting a lower pay, the company is not obliged to hire. And, ANYONE would jump ship if a better opportunity arises, be it a diploma holder, a bachelor’s degree holder or a post-graduate degree holder.

Indeed, as Heavenly-Sword points out, it is a huge irony that the government is trying to encourage Singaporeans to pursue postgraduate studies but yet firms are unwilling to hire due to the perpetuation of certain stereotypes based on groundless assumptions. There are many ways to combat the perceived negativities associated with people who hold higher degrees. It is a matter of whether firms want to do it. With regards to paying a premium in salary, firms can simply arrange with the post-graduate degree holder that the initial salary will be the same as that of a fresh-graduate, but the advancement prospects would be more rapid if they prove that their post-graduate degree indeed adds significant productivity. With regards to the “jumping ship” issue, it is up to the company how to engender a sense of employee loyalty across the board. I do not believe that post-graduate degree holders are any more likely than other people to change jobs.

If employees so choose to discriminate, they can have a hundred excuses to do so. Whoever said discrimination requires a good reason? What it requires is an excuse to somewhat justify the act. For practical purposes, a smart person will play the game in order to be assured of a livelihood. Post-graduate studies will end up being the enclave of those who are interested in academia. Human capital will not improve because people don’t see a need to do so. The monkey-see monkey-do scenario among employers could very well lead to the downfall of Singapore, where high quality human capital has been instrumental in ensuring economic prosperity.