Hearing nothing back from interviews

Drew_TNBD

Myranda said:

Chalky said:

 I've been interviewed maybe 30 times and interviewed others at least double that number. I read the CVs as they come in, so if someone gets to my interview then they are a good candidate for the job, unless their CV is a lie. As an interviewer, my job is to corroborate and expand on the CV, give the interviewee the chance to relate their skills and experience to my walkthrough of the role, and provide the situation for the interviewee's character to shine through.  I give feedback as we go through the interview.

I am not the interviewee's life coach, analyst or parent. It is not my job to nurture their career, give them guidance for their future, or provide emotional support for their disappointment. Unless they are an internal candidate of course - I've often followed up with training, coaching and mentoring because I do have an obligation to help their development.

Too many external candidates think that giving them the opportunity for an interview - something for which other applicants would be delighted to take their place - entitles them to detailed personal analysis and guidance. When the truth is, some one else beat them. The fact that you NEED feedback is probably connected to why you failed to get the job.

You really are a total fuckwit aren't you.

This is the university I'm paying near £10000 a year for an education in the world of IT employment... and you don't think there's a similar obligation for them to help my development? Words fail me that you cannot see that. You feel an obligation to someone paid to be there, but think somehow there's no obligation for someone who is PAYING to be there... 

And feedback doesn't have to be a 50,000 word dissertation, a couple of sentences in an email at most would be enough. Given that 99.99999999999999% of uni students have no work experience in IT helpdesk support it seems highly f***ing unlikely that it's because anyone was more experienced, given that we're here to GET qualifications it's highly unlikely there were more qualified people... so just perhaps, it was something in my interview technique, body language etc that scuppered me - so perhaps it's something I NEED TO KNOW FOR THE FUTURE WHICH IS WHAT THE UNI IS FOR YOU FUCKING CRETIN. Is that clear enough as an explanation of what I might be thinking?

Maybe you called the interviewer a fucking cretin and forgot afterwards?

Myranda

Drew_TNBD said:

Myranda said:

Chalky said:

 I've been interviewed maybe 30 times and interviewed others at least double that number. I read the CVs as they come in, so if someone gets to my interview then they are a good candidate for the job, unless their CV is a lie. As an interviewer, my job is to corroborate and expand on the CV, give the interviewee the chance to relate their skills and experience to my walkthrough of the role, and provide the situation for the interviewee's character to shine through.  I give feedback as we go through the interview.

I am not the interviewee's life coach, analyst or parent. It is not my job to nurture their career, give them guidance for their future, or provide emotional support for their disappointment. Unless they are an internal candidate of course - I've often followed up with training, coaching and mentoring because I do have an obligation to help their development.

Too many external candidates think that giving them the opportunity for an interview - something for which other applicants would be delighted to take their place - entitles them to detailed personal analysis and guidance. When the truth is, some one else beat them. The fact that you NEED feedback is probably connected to why you failed to get the job.

You really are a total fuckwit aren't you.

This is the university I'm paying near £10000 a year for an education in the world of IT employment... and you don't think there's a similar obligation for them to help my development? Words fail me that you cannot see that. You feel an obligation to someone paid to be there, but think somehow there's no obligation for someone who is PAYING to be there... 

And feedback doesn't have to be a 50,000 word dissertation, a couple of sentences in an email at most would be enough. Given that 99.99999999999999% of uni students have no work experience in IT helpdesk support it seems highly f***ing unlikely that it's because anyone was more experienced, given that we're here to GET qualifications it's highly unlikely there were more qualified people... so just perhaps, it was something in my interview technique, body language etc that scuppered me - so perhaps it's something I NEED TO KNOW FOR THE FUTURE WHICH IS WHAT THE UNI IS FOR YOU FUCKING CRETIN. Is that clear enough as an explanation of what I might be thinking?

Maybe you called the interviewer a fucking cretin and forgot afterwards?

I mean ... that's not impossible - but because of the job position I've always been very polite to the IT staff in general (just in case they ended up as possible interviewers). The position was mentioned as part of our inductions into one of our modules so we knew about it from day 1

TheBlueWolf

In that case the fucking cretins really should give reasons.

Mkjackary

mart said:

Mkjackary said:

.... Maybe they needed to make up their diversity quotas/already had the person in mind and they only had the interviews as it was part of the process that had to happen. ....

I totally agree with everything else you've said, but no sane recruitment panel would choose someone to "make up their diversity quotas" - that is positive discrimination, which is illegal. 

Yes, no sane recruitment panel should, but they do. Plenty of examples of it happening. Yeah it is shite, but it does definitely happen, look at the BBC, they don't just specify non white people for jobs, they have gone so far to sack someone because they are white and they need to diversify their workforce.

Happens all the time in the sciences that are generally dominated by men (physics, maths etc), a woman and a man with the same quals, the woman will get the job at 2:1  because they are desperate for more women. Same with men and teaching, in primary and secondary schools there is a massive lack of male teachers so they are prefered, even with equal quals.

I would have thought it would be worse with bigger companies because diversity helps with PR and the brands image. Not saying it did happen in this case, but it does happen, even if it is illegal, it is almost impossible to prove. 

thomasross20

Keep bugging them until they give you feedback.
A place like that is also a place I probably wouldn't want to work. 
And I'd also want to hear the harsh truth so I can improve myself.
Good luck in your quest

Drew_TNBD

Mkjackary said:

mart said:

Mkjackary said:

.... Maybe they needed to make up their diversity quotas/already had the person in mind and they only had the interviews as it was part of the process that had to happen. ....

I totally agree with everything else you've said, but no sane recruitment panel would choose someone to "make up their diversity quotas" - that is positive discrimination, which is illegal. 

Yes, no sane recruitment panel should, but they do. Plenty of examples of it happening. Yeah it is shite, but it does definitely happen, look at the BBC, they don't just specify non white people for jobs, they have gone so far to sack someone because they are white and they need to diversify their workforce.

Happens all the time in the sciences that are generally dominated by men (physics, maths etc), a woman and a man with the same quals, the woman will get the job at 2:1  because they are desperate for more women. Same with men and teaching, in primary and secondary schools there is a massive lack of male teachers so they are prefered, even with equal quals.

I would have thought it would be worse with bigger companies because diversity helps with PR and the brands image. Not saying it did happen in this case, but it does happen, even if it is illegal, it is almost impossible to prove. 

Nah mate.. it just doesn't happen.

https://www.rt.com/usa/362002-yahoo-ceo-discrimination-lawsuit/

... oh fuck.

chrispy108

Are the people interviewing you academic staff though? Or just the IT folks employed to keep the IT up and running? Not everyone on campus is there to give you an education, lots of people are there to support the folks who are.

mellowsun

In my experience most places won't give feedback unless you specifically ask for it. Even then, it is not always forthcoming.

Being on the other side of the process, it can be difficult to give honest feedback so it's safest to say 'there was a better candidate' - which can mean many things.  I once gave feedback that a candidate had good knowledge in one area but did not demonstrate enough knowledge in an area that we were specifically looking for, and they were also somewhat guarded and unforthcoming, and I went into a bit of detail in these areas, and they went ballistic and it caused me all sorts of grief for a while.

So the actions of a minority of candidates can spoil things for everyone else who would appreciate constructive feedback, which is a shame, and can result in organisations being reluctant to give it.

Myranda

chrispy108 said:

Are the people interviewing you academic staff though? Or just the IT folks employed to keep the IT up and running? Not everyone on campus is there to give you an education, lots of people are there to support the folks who are.

Two were academics and one was the manager of the faculty IT department (separate to the rest of the university IT dept)

chrispy108

Have you asked for feedback?

Myranda

chrispy108 said:

Have you asked for feedback?

It's kinda the weekend, I thought I'd make sure they were at work in order to ask... only found out everyone who got it was told on Friday on Saturday

chrispy108

Then you are prematurely angry.

mart

Drew_TNBD said:

Mkjackary said:
...
Yes, no sane recruitment panel should, but they do. Plenty of examples of it happening. Yeah it is shite, but it does definitely happen, look at the BBC, they don't just specify non white people for jobs, they have gone so far to sack someone because they are white and they need to diversify their workforce.

Happens all the time in the sciences that are generally dominated by men (physics, maths etc), a woman and a man with the same quals, the woman will get the job at 2:1  because they are desperate for more women. Same with men and teaching, in primary and secondary schools there is a massive lack of male teachers so they are prefered, even with equal quals.

I would have thought it would be worse with bigger companies because diversity helps with PR and the brands image. Not saying it did happen in this case, but it does happen, even if it is illegal, it is almost impossible to prove. 

Nah mate.. it just doesn't happen.

https://www.rt.com/usa/362002-yahoo-ceo-discrimination-lawsuit/

... oh fuck.

Have you got any cases where it ACTUALLY happened? The BBC case is a bit more complicated than his claim of being sacked for being white, as the other thread showed, and that RT article is about somebody claiming loads of stuff but none of it has been settled in a court of law as yet. So maybe he's just another ex employee with an axe to grind. Has anybody actually won a court case showing this sort of thing happened?

As @Mkjackary says, it is almost impossible to prove. That also means it is almost impossible for you to know it happened. So maybe it didn't. For example:

One of the recent rounds of interviews I did we interviewed 6 people, and 5 were women. It would have looked like a clear case of positive discrimination. But, actually, we didn't know the gender of the candidates and in one case everybody on the panel was shocked when a woman walked in because somehow we'd guessed it would be a male candidate (her name was Chinese so we couldn't tell the gender, and the area is hugely male dominated). There were at least two other shortlisted candidates where the names didn't give away the gender, again partly because all the candidates were from overseas.

But no, I'm not arguing that every panel obeys the law. But I've seen a lot of traditional prejudice ("we can't employ her, she might get pregnant" is one quote that sticks in my mind), and no positive discrimination.

Drew_TNBD

mart said:

Drew_TNBD said:

Mkjackary said:
...
Yes, no sane recruitment panel should, but they do. Plenty of examples of it happening. Yeah it is shite, but it does definitely happen, look at the BBC, they don't just specify non white people for jobs, they have gone so far to sack someone because they are white and they need to diversify their workforce.

Happens all the time in the sciences that are generally dominated by men (physics, maths etc), a woman and a man with the same quals, the woman will get the job at 2:1  because they are desperate for more women. Same with men and teaching, in primary and secondary schools there is a massive lack of male teachers so they are prefered, even with equal quals.

I would have thought it would be worse with bigger companies because diversity helps with PR and the brands image. Not saying it did happen in this case, but it does happen, even if it is illegal, it is almost impossible to prove. 

Nah mate.. it just doesn't happen.

https://www.rt.com/usa/362002-yahoo-ceo-discrimination-lawsuit/

... oh fuck.

Have you got any cases where it ACTUALLY happened? The BBC case is a bit more complicated than his claim of being sacked for being white, as the other thread showed, and that RT article is about somebody claiming loads of stuff but none of it has been settled in a court of law as yet. So maybe he's just another ex employee with an axe to grind. Has anybody actually won a court case showing this sort of thing happened?

As @Mkjackary says, it is almost impossible to prove. That also means it is almost impossible for you to know it happened. So maybe it didn't. For example:

One of the recent rounds of interviews I did we interviewed 6 people, and 5 were women. It would have looked like a clear case of positive discrimination. But, actually, we didn't know the gender of the candidates and in one case everybody on the panel was shocked when a woman walked in because somehow we'd guessed it would be a male candidate (her name was Chinese so we couldn't tell the gender, and the area is hugely male dominated). There were at least two other shortlisted candidates where the names didn't give away the gender, again partly because all the candidates were from overseas.

But no, I'm not arguing that every panel obeys the law. But I've seen a lot of traditional prejudice ("we can't employ her, she might get pregnant" is one quote that sticks in my mind), and no positive discrimination.

I've seen plenty of positive discrimination. Like Intel giving grants and money to women only, to try and encourage them to go into coding and software engineering - even though as a society we've been trying to encourage them into those fields for decades now and the numbers have hardly shifted.

I've seen the BBC advertise jobs that were for BME people only.

And you're flat out wrong when you said before that positive discrimination would be illegal. It simply isn't:
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/work/discrimination-at-work/what-doesn-t-count-as-discrimination-at-work/discrimination-at-work-positive-action/

Effectively our law is written around:
diversity == always good
equality == parity of outcome

Which is just short sighted and dumb. You have to account for people's CHOICES and DESIRES.

In an equal society, you'd expect all sorts of disparity in all sorts of fields. Because when people have the widest choices, they tend to think on a more individualistic level than when they don't.

monquixote

When I worked at the BBC it was 95% white people who had been to public school except the cleaners, security guards and canteen staff who were 95% black. 

It was quite disconcerting.

Drew_TNBD

And the fucked up thing about positive discrimination (or positive action if you will) built right into the heart of it is the tacit assumption that the dominant demographic are simply better than those who need said action. They can't compete on an even playing field, so need a stacked deck.

Now if you ask me, THAT is racist and pretty damn ignorant.

mart

Ok, points accepted. I didn't want to get drawn into the exact details of what discrimination is allowed when, so gave the simplistic summary that positive discrimination is illegal, you're right, the position is more complicated.

But even that CAB page shows the legal position is subtle, and it seems clear that employing someone because they are black/female/vulcan is only legal if the candidates are equal in all other aspects. And it looks to me as if the BBC advertising for BME candidates only would be illegal.

As we've discussed before, measuring equality by parity of outcome is a pretty crude way of doing things. In the processes I've been involved in, the attitude has always been one of trying to make the selection process as fair as possible, and then accepting whatever outcome arises, whether that leads it more diversity overall or less. Que sera sera.

57Deluxe

I applied for a job in a hearing aid factory - heard nothing...

mart

Drew_TNBD said:

And the fucked up thing about positive discrimination (or positive action if you will) built right into the heart of it is the tacit assumption that the dominant demographic are simply better than those who need said action. They can't compete on an even playing field, so need a stacked deck.

Now if you ask me, THAT is racist and pretty damn ignorant.

Ok, that is a pretty screwed up way of looking at things. Firstly positive discrimination is only allowed when the candidates are equal. Secondly, positive action is sought because it is felt that the deck is stacked in favour of the dominant demographic and, hence, against everyone else.  It is firmly not assuming the underrepresented demographics will be better, but nor does it assume that they will be worse.

Chalky

Myranda said:

Chalky said:

 I've been interviewed maybe 30 times and interviewed others at least double that number. I read the CVs as they come in, so if someone gets to my interview then they are a good candidate for the job, unless their CV is a lie. As an interviewer, my job is to corroborate and expand on the CV, give the interviewee the chance to relate their skills and experience to my walkthrough of the role, and provide the situation for the interviewee's character to shine through.  I give feedback as we go through the interview.

I am not the interviewee's life coach, analyst or parent. It is not my job to nurture their career, give them guidance for their future, or provide emotional support for their disappointment. Unless they are an internal candidate of course - I've often followed up with training, coaching and mentoring because I do have an obligation to help their development.

Too many external candidates think that giving them the opportunity for an interview - something for which other applicants would be delighted to take their place - entitles them to detailed personal analysis and guidance. When the truth is, some one else beat them. The fact that you NEED feedback is probably connected to why you failed to get the job.

You really are a total fuckwit aren't you.

This is the university I'm paying near £10000 a year for an education in the world of IT employment... and you don't think there's a similar obligation for them to help my development? Words fail me that you cannot see that. You feel an obligation to someone paid to be there, but think somehow there's no obligation for someone who is PAYING to be there... 

And feedback doesn't have to be a 50,000 word dissertation, a couple of sentences in an email at most would be enough. Given that 99.99999999999999% of uni students have no work experience in IT helpdesk support it seems highly f***ing unlikely that it's because anyone was more experienced, given that we're here to GET qualifications it's highly unlikely there were more qualified people... so just perhaps, it was something in my interview technique, body language etc that scuppered me - so perhaps it's something I NEED TO KNOW FOR THE FUTURE WHICH IS WHAT THE UNI IS FOR YOU FUCKING CRETIN. Is that clear enough as an explanation of what I might be thinking?

Can I give you some more feedback?

Your block capitals supports the last sentence in my previous post - no-one ever recruits the needy candidate.

You are at Uni to listen and learn? Yet your first evaluation of feedback is emotional reaction and condemnation of the person giving the feedback. The interviewers will detect that in your interview and in a sober nerdy environment like IT I guess they are going to probably prefer an analytical response rather than an emotional response.

Interview technique? Be confident and friendly, listen carefully to the question and make sure you answer it first before widening your response. Body language? Mirror the interviewer in body and vocal speed and tone. 90 percent of being successful is whether the interviewer feels they could work with you ok.

Despite being a fuckwit and cretin according to you, I never asked for feedback because I got the job more than 20 times out of the maybe 30 interviews.  Took the jobs too, almost every time.

Sure I remember some of my interview failures. Failure is tough only because of your lack of emotional discipline. How do you think a sales guy copes with being turned down by potential customers day in, day out? They feel that rejection almost everyday. Do they go back and beg for feedback as to why the customer didn't buy from them? Of course not. They review what they think wasn't great, tweak their approach accordingly and move on to the next one. Emotional maturity is a wonderful thing - get some.

Have a nice day