Htydjtk

When interviewing with a company where all the interviewers have lower educational backgrounds from lower ranking schools than the interviewee,

Wait, hang on. While this is a common assumption that reputed schools produce good grades, it does not necessarily imply that the second or third-tier schools are of lower grade. Moreover, it's not only the formal education that matters, there are many proficient engineers you'll meet who are self-taught (up to a very great extent). Some may not have a prestigious alma mater, but they may certainly have brilliant on-job work experience and learning.

The reason behind is that employers might prefer hiring people less or as smart people as they are.

That's almost never true, rather quite the opposite. If I'm hiring someone, I'd expect a smart and capable person, not a "weaker and reserve" one.

To add, don't judge your interviewer by their background - in an interview, always give your best shot.

Note 1:

That said, when you say "all the interviewers have lower educational backgrounds...." - maybe you should be worried about the organization and their work, not the individuals.

Note 2:

Don't make assumptions. In case you feel that you need to underplay your abilities to get a job- ask yourself: "Is it worth it?". Even if you get the job by downplaying your abilities, you can be certain that you will have zero job satisfaction, working in that organization, as you would have to suppress your natural abilities and capabilities and skills to survive also. The scope for your career and personal growth will also be almost non-existent.

So, don't bother about the interviewer's capabilities - they are not under your control. Focus on your capabilities to show the interviewer why you are the "best match" for the requirement they have. Leave the rest to them.

A good life lesson is, don't make assumptions.

I'm saying this because your question is rife with them:

• You're assuming that you know the educational background of everyone at the table.


• You're assuming that educational background is an indicator of smartness.


• You're assuming that the person who appears the smartest doesn't get the job (your last sentence, which references a saying I've never actually heard).


• You're assuming the interviewer won't want to hire someone who appears smarter than them in the interview.


• You're assuming that you're skilled enough at modesty that you would be able to "hide" your smarts from the interviewers at will, if you so choose.


• You're assuming that "smartness" is an important factor in the interview process (versus, say, skills or the ability to complete tasks for instance).


• You're assuming that the interviewers are all inherently comparing you to themselves (versus, say, comparing you to other candidates or people currently performing that role for the employer).

Regardless of whether each of these are true or not (and I think there are strong arguments that they're pretty much all patently false), the biggest mistake you've made is making so many assumptions in the first place. Every time you make an assumption about an interview, you run the risk of being wrong, and blowing the interview over something that could have been avoided.

When preparing for an interview, you need to be able to show actual worth in terms of performing work. Instead of focusing on the appearance of smartness, focus on the requirements of the job, and your ability to practically show that you have the skills they're looking for.

The good news is, by taking this approach, it's actually easy to prepare for an interview. The employer has given you a template of what they're looking for (the job description), so you don't need to make assumptions. If you go in to an interview ready to show how you match that template, you'll do well.

Here's something you probably haven't realized yet:

1 year in the workforce is equivalent to about 3 years in college. You divide your attention in college. You are given problems that the answers to are already known (unless you're pursuing doctoral / PHD degrees), and there is far less "on the line" than in a real job.

The one advantage "good schools" have is a lifelong network of other graduates that you share a connection with.

That person who's been working 5 years from "Average Joe Tech" knows as much, if not more than any high-end bachelor's degree holder, and he knows more about what is needed in that situation than ANY applicant could possible glean from a job description.

So you go in there with your best shot, but you go in there understanding that they need you to fit the job, and they're not going to make the job fit you.

I've hired good and bad graduates with "top school degrees," but I've also hired a fair number of people with no or unrelated degrees who turned into phenomenal individual contributors.

This question makes assumptions that are worth being picked apart in detail.

First, if the company wanted to hire people stupider than themselves, and believed that the quality of school was a proxy for how smart the applicant is, and that the school on the transcript was a school smart people go to, they wouldn’t have brought the candidate in for an interview in the first place.

Well managed companies typically want to hire people who are smarter/better than the people already working there, because they need people to do work that they cannot already do. If a company wants to hire people who are stupider than the people who work there out of some sort of inadequacy that normal adults grow out of after leaving school, then that is a company you should avoid working for. That would imply acting more smart, rather than less.

But even then, you shouldn’t try to “game” these aspects of interviewing. You don’t know in advance what sort of preferences the interviewers have. You don’t know whether they want smart people or whether they want dumb people out of their own insecurity. You don’t know whether they want people who went to good schools or people who went to bad schools. You don’t know if they’re virtuous or vicious. Because you don’t know these these things, it’s hard to play a game to get them right. It’s hard to pretend.

What you do know, is if you take an offer, you’re going to have to work there for a time long enough that everyone is going to see through your pretending ability. So, don’t waste their time and yours pretending to be something that you are not.

While you don't want to appear arrogant or a "show-off" there's no reason to appear weaker or less intelligent/capable then you actually are.

I always want to hire the best person for the job, regardless of their relative intelligence vis a vis myself, in fact hiring people smarter than yourself is what we call "good management".

The candidate should behave reasonably, regardless of the interviewers.

Think about this: how should Einstein behave during a job interview? Of course, almost everybody on Earth would look stupid by comparison, regardless of University degrees.

By "reasonably" I mean:

• be polite and civilized;


• answer the answers as truthfully as possible, while selling yourself in the best way possible;


• do not boast about yourself;


• let the interviewers deal with what / who they want to hire for the job they have to offer.

Sell yourself as who you are. No more, no less, because your actual credentials will come out during the course of employment. If you misled the people you will be working with, you will not do well on the job.

Copying the manners of the people you are talking to is actually a pretty neat psychological trick to make yourself appear more likeable. People generally like people more when they are similar to them. This is called mirroring. And besides, nobody likes arrogant know-it-alls. Talking in a way which is appropriate to the audience is an important social skill. But keep a few things in mind:

• Using psychological tricks to your advantage raises ethical problems. You are literally manipulating people into liking you.


• They might know that trick and realize you are trying to pull it off, which would be a red flag.


• They might actually be consciously looking for someone who is smarter than they are (or as smart as they think they are). Remember the job description and consider what kind of person they are likely looking for.


• If you have to "play dumb" in the interview in order to get the job, you will have to to "play dump" for the rest of the time you are working there. Do you really want to keep up this charade? Or wouldn't you be more comfortable working for someone who accepts you the way you really are?

Other answers have pointed out that the educational background detail is loaded with naive assumptions, but putting that aside and addressing your core question: Should you purposefully make yourself appear less capable in order to get hired somewhere where you suspect your hiring manager(s) won't hire somebody more capable than they are?

Unless you have a really compelling reason to want to get hired for this particular organisation / role, if you suspect this is the case you're better off walking away.

Managers not hiring people more capable than them is a huge red flag that the team / organisation's culture is not a good one. Both your immediate day-to-day and longer term career growth prospects will likely be much worse in such a culture than in one where managers are simply looking to hire the best people they can find, at all levels.

If you are confident in your abilities, as you seem to be, you likely have other, better options. If you even have to ask this question going into an interview, it's a signal you should just decline it and look elsewhere.

There is much here already for the OP to reflect on about the true value of degrees, and more importantly how other people view them.

But I can tell you one thing for sure: I wouldn't hire someone who flounced into an interview to show off. At work, arrogance is a real hindrance. As mustaccio pointed out so aptly in the comments, the Dunning-Kruger effect is not a good thing to be dealing with.

I agree that employers might prefer hiring people less or as smart people as they are.

I think that the answer depends on what really you want.

Are you over-educated for that job? And, despite this, do you really want that job?

I have been in this situation, and I tried to reserve part of my repertoire. But, after getting the job, I recognized the mismatch. The employer also recognized the mismatch. And I had to find a new job. After making the same error twice, now I am in a position when my reportoire is appreciated in full.

To sum up: if you reserve your repertoire maybe you get the work. But it won't last.

From personal experience, I can recommend not downplaying your abilities - but definitely downplaying the "education" part. In many fields, the degree itself isn't particularly valuable, but the skills you developed while studying can be valuable.

I completed an M.S. in the social sciences. My work focused on computer simulation of social activities, so I had pretty solid quantitative skills and reasonable programming skills. My first job after college was in advertising. In my organization the only other person with a graduate degree was the CEO, who had an MBA. Some other high-ranking people had bachelors degrees, but many (if not most) people had no degree at all.

Having a degree, and the reputation of your school, will largely not be impressive. Instead focus on your skills. For me, this meant discussing how well I understood social behavior (which is important in advertising), quantitative skills, and technical skills. Don't focus on theory. Don't talk about your intelligence or education. Tell them what you can do for them.

One last piece of advice: don't suppose that you have any significant advantage over other staff because of your education. Many of those people have a lifetime of experience in their field and are incredibly talented. You do contribute a different skill set, which also brings value.