Life poll

[Erebus the Black]

I just failed another job interview for a good position,

Life's a garden, dig it. What do you think?

[Cairo Jim]

Crap happens. There are other good jobs out there. Also, none of the job's I've gotten involved an interview.

[Erebus the Black]

thanks cairo, I appreciate it

[Randomizer]

Periods of high unemployment are lousy times to get good jobs. Too many qualified people are looking for work.

[RCCCL]

What Randomizer said, I got fired this past January and so far, have only managed to get a part-time job. In my opinion, the problem is compounded by most employers doing all of their hiring online now days. Makes it hard for someone with amazing personality and people skills to get in the door.

[Actaeon]

I've found that it's nigh impossible to get a full time job unless you're tremendously overqualified, but part time and one time jobs are plentiful. The challenge is patching them together into a viable income.

[Enraged Slith]

I don't get how you can "fail" an interview. It seems like a pretty shallow process for determining whether or not someone is worth hiring.

[Slawbug]

The trick is that it doesn't have to be determine that perfectly. For most jobs, it's an acceptable risk to hire people who you're, say, 75% sure will work out, knowing you can fire them later if they don't. The less that is an acceptable risk, the longer and more extensive an interview process will be.

 

So it's really a question of what allows you to size someone up most efficiently -- not most deeply.

[Trenton.]

13. Hope there are more jobs in 4 years

[Alorael at Large]

Originally Posted By: Enraged Slith

I don't get how you can "fail" an interview. It seems like a pretty shallow process for determining whether or not someone is worth hiring.

When you have a huge number of applicants for every spot, you can add more hurdles in the hopes of weeding out until you have the absolute best prospect. This assumes a few things that are shaky, though. Firstly, that interviews actually help. Secondly, that it matters.

—Alorae, who is more sure of the second to the first.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Enraged Slith

I don't get how you can "fail" an interview. It seems like a pretty shallow process for determining whether or not someone is worth hiring.

I don't see interviews as a question of "Who, among these people, should be hired", because it's stupid to try and base that off of a few minutes of talk to someone. Rather, it's a question of "Who, among these people, should not be hired", and then once you've pared down the pool a bit, picking the ones who are best qualified for the job based on what they've done, what they're capable of, recommendations, etc.

It's actually quite simple to fail an interview, all you really need to do is not be properly prepared. The attitude of "If you can't be bothered to put on a suit, we can't be bothered to give you a job" seems stupid at first glance, but since all the pointless hoops you are made to jump through are so trivial, the fact that you aren't exerting the minimum effort to meet the requirements imposed on you for a couple minutes is telling. Conversely, being able to pass an interview tells me nothing except that you can fake it well*, which while valuable, only says that I should go back to your resume and work out if you're what I'm actually trying to find or a poseur.

That said, there are several stupid interview things that seem to be all the rage now, like asking people do to Fermi problems that have no answer to see "how they think". I don't care if you can properly estimate the number of ping-pong balls that can fit in Yankee stadium! I mean, at least have the courtesy to give applicants a problem that has a solution that is possible to work out, then you'll actually get useful data in the form of "did they answer this question right, yes or no".

[Erebus the Black]

We were 8 people, we were given a page with a list of items.

We were told we were going on a trip through a reality show without knowing where, and were told to each pick 4 items and add another item of our own.

Then we got 5 minutes to choose 5 items acceptable on everyone from the 8 lists we made.

At the end we were told we get a break while they determine who will remain and who will go home. 5 remained for personal interviews and exams and 3 (including me ) were told to go home and that maybe, (not likely) they will call us again for a different role in the company. No explanation on what or why we are sent home, because god forbid if we actually learn something from the experience (and the usual law suit phobia)

 

[Rowen]

Networking is still handy for finding jobs. Almost all jobs I've applied for never posted publicly. Its been all about personal references to find the interviews.

 

Not getting hired not bad in its self, as it means nothing changes.

[RCCCL]

Not getting hired when bills are mounting is bad.

[Enraged Slith]

[Mosquito---Slayer]

I read this in the autobiography of A P J Abdul Kalam. ( He is known as the missile man of India and is basically responsible for all missiles India has at it's disposal today)

What basically happened was that he finished 9th in a group of 25 where they had to select only 8 guys for a post in the Indian air force, deeply disappointed he went to a sage in Haridwar who told him :-

"Accept your destiny and go ahead with your life. You are not destined to become an Air Force pilot. What you are destined to become is not revealed now but it is predetermined. Forget this failure as it was essential to lead you to your destined path. Search, instead, for the true purpose of your existence. Become one with yourself, my son! Surrender yourself to the wish of God,"

I know such things help little when you are sad and down, but you just might want to read it when you are in a better mood, I mean it worked out really well for him in the end.

[keira]

Look on the bright side: you aren't working for the person who thought doing an interview like that was a good idea.

[Slawbug]

That's... a really weird interview. Eesh.

 

Looking back on all the jobs I've taken, I remember the following interview processes:

 

(1) 5 minute conversation, 30 minutes of doing sample work, job offer.

(2) 10 minute questionnaire covering relevant knowledge, 15 minute conversation, job offer.

(3) 30 minute interview with 2 people, job offer.

(4) No interview; offered job directly from volunteer position.

(5) 4 hour interview without breaks, interviewer consulted with hiring committee, job offer 2 weeks later.

(6) 10 minute conversation, job offer.

(7) 60 minute interview, consultation with boss, job offer. (applied for new job in different division of same organization)

(8) 3 hour telephone interview split into 2 parts, job offer 3 days later.

(9) 45 minute interview with 3 people, references checked, job offer.

(10) 2 hour observation session at previous job, 1 hour interview with 2 people, job offer.

(11) long email conversation discussing job, 45 minute interview, references checked thoroughly (30 minute conversations with each of 3 different references!), job offer.

 

I can think of NUMEROUS cases where I've applied for a job and never been offered an interview, but only a handful where I interviewed and was rejected. Maybe that means I'm a good interviewer, but I don't think so. I think it reflects what Dantius suggested, that interviews are used to screen out problems, as much as to make selections. Since interviews take up somebody's time, many employers would rather schedule as few as possible, so if there are a small number of candidates and the applications are not all on the same level, that's what they'll do.

 

On the other hand, most of the jobs I've applied for have required relatively specialized skill sets, not payed very well, or both -- which means low competition. So maybe that colours my perspective.

[Little Fyora]

It's the group discussions I'm afraid of.

 

(I've not attended a GD either, but it's from what I've heard from others.)

[Alorael at Large]

Originally Posted By: Dantius

The attitude of "If you can't be bothered to put on a suit, we can't be bothered to give you a job" seems stupid at first glance, but since all the pointless hoops you are made to jump through are so trivial, the fact that you aren't exerting the minimum effort to meet the requirements imposed on you for a couple minutes is telling.

Sometimes, but I've been witness to someone not getting a job because his suit didn't quite match and his tie was poorly tied. Now, these would be fatal flaws in a job requiring wearing suits, but his job required him to wear clothing he wouldn't mind ruining. Why was he rejected? Irrelevant biases. He was otherwise a very good, though not perfect, candidate.

—Alorael, who thinks a number of interviewers somehow lost sight of the purpose of the interview. There are a lot of stories of weird things in them to evaluate irrelevant qualities. If you're hiring someone to do a job, instead of wasting a lot of time it's probably best to get down to business and assess whether they're basically competent. Reality show lists are probably unhelpful, except maybe as a cover for eliminating someone for qualities that aren't legal grounds for passing over for hiring.

[Erebus the Black]

Right on spot:(XKCD)

[adc.]

Originally Posted By: GuItAr ZeRo - PiNk It Up

13. Hope there are more jobs in 4 years

I'm with you. I can predict your job anyway.

Click to reveal.. (Trenton's job)

Either he's a pony or a pony caretaker

---------
-I agree though, A

[Randomizer]

Graduating college during a recession, my roommate pointed out after his job interview was cancelled that you know it's bad when the company goes from hiring to firing.

[Erebus the Black]

Most big time companies do both at the same time (using the recession as an excuse) in order to refresh the average age of their company's employees and to reneg on the seniority of the older employees before the severance fees become more expensive than they would like to pay and seniority laws kick in.

[Student of Trinity]

Deciding whom to hire is tough. If you're an interviewer, your dream is to see seven very good candidates, so you can feel confident in identifying what a very good candidate is like — and one dazzling genius who obviously outclasses the others in all respects. Then your decision is easy. Otherwise, it's horrible, because it's not clear what you're supposed to do, but you'd better not screw it up.

 

Stupid interview games amount to making the candidates roll dice, so you can pretend that a high roll demonstrates dazzling genius, and thereby have an excuse to pick someone. The only way I can think of to try to improve your odds, if the interviewers are that desperate, is to find a few ways of your own to stand out from the pack. Assuming you've already presented all your genuine assets for the job, standing out beyond that means finding a few extra potential excuses for picking you, even if they're essentially bogus. Maybe their stupid game won't work very well, and they'll be willing to take the excuse you give them for picking you, instead.

 

You don't want to overdo it and get yourself pegged as a BS artist, but up to a point, the interviewers may be secretly wanting someone to give them an excuse for selecting them, and so they may play along more than you'd think.

 

At least, this is the only non-obvious advice I can think of. I hope it's not disastrous. It is not based on any personal experience — I've been on both sides of the interview table quite a lot, but only in highly specialized fields, where it's unusually easy to compare people. There were never any stupid interview games.

[Alorael at Large]

There's this article about the sheer length of the interviewing process, and there's another that I can't find about how companies have been getting inundated with applications for positions and then hiring nobody. There are other explanations, but I suspect psychology. The sheer number of applicants is daunting, and as SoT says, that's likely to be exacerbated by the the desperate attempt to maximize the outcome from an unmanageably large pool.

 

In this case, perfect is the enemy of good for both the company and the potential employees.

 

—Alorael, who likes SoT's strategy. If you can't be an obvious standout as head and shoulders above the competition, just stand out from the competition. But in a field of thousands, where interviews likely repeat and repeat in the hopes that people will eliminate themselves or reveal that hidden genius, there's only so much you can do.

[Erebus the Black]

But what if I'm such a bad worker, such a Jynx, that any company hiring me will actually be damaged in the long run. What should I do? Should I deceive the company? Should I ask for social security and get institutionalized in a home(a loony bin)? Should I kill someone and go to prison? Should I go to a war stricken area (such as Sudan was a few years back, or Syria is now) and find my death there?

[Student of Trinity]

On your feet, soldier.

 

A couple of rejections can definitely bring on self-doubt. I landed my job on the ninth try, and at that point I was a bit of a wreck. But you're not going to be such a bad worker if you don't want to be. Somebody needs you.

 

Looking for a job is a lot like looking for a mate. You feel like you're standing on a street corner with your hat out, asking everybody if they have a spare Airbus 380 to give you. It seems like you're asking for so much, and have so little to offer. But in fact somebody is wringing their hands or crying themselves to sleep for lack of somebody just like you, and at some point they're going to walk past you on the street, see you trying to give away an airliner, and thank their stars that they lived to see the day.

 

Or something like that. The point is, there's nothing wrong with you. It's just that the matching up process is extremely inefficient. Being able to keep on trying despite rejection is an essential skill for making it through the process.

[Alorael at Large]

SoT gave the serious answer. I'm going to give the abstract point by point response.

 

Originally Posted By: Dead man Walking

But what if I'm such a bad worker, such a Jynx, that any company hiring me will actually be damaged in the long run. What should I do? Should I deceive the company?

No, but I think it's not unreasonable to let the company figure out if you're worthless for themselves. After all, you may not be the best judge of your own merits, and someone may find some use for you despite yourself.

 

Quote:

Should I ask for social security and get institutionalized in a home(a loony bin)?

Getting SSDI is something of a roll of the dice. I've seen people get it for no real reason at all, and I've seen people denied despite crippling disabilities. If you're actually disabled, you should get social security; if you're not, you should find work. Even work well below your capabilities is better than nothing.

 

As for getting institutionalized, I wouldn't try. Long-term psychiatric care has been gutted by the closing of state hospitals in the US. Even the most unstable long-term patients with schizophrenia can't get a bed for more than a few months, and it's actually quite difficult to convincingly feign psychosis.

 

Quote:

Should I kill someone and go to prison? Should I go to a war stricken area (such as Sudan was a few years back, or Syria is now) and find my death there?

There are easier ways to both die and land in prison, but I wouldn't exactly recommend either.

 

—Alorael, who suspects that doing something, even something that pays poorly for work below one's capabilities, is more satisfying and less crushing than perpetual employment limbo. Few aspire to serving sandwiches or the hundreds of other low-level service jobs, but they're better than nothing.

[Death Knight]

I just survived my 2nd interview today, some of those questions require a skill of 5 in bs.

[Randomizer]

Part of the interview process is to provide cover for the interviewer in case the choice turns out to be bad. There's nothing like being able to blame something else for the bad decision.