<p>Sschoe, that is just nuts. You’re right.</p>
<p>Maybe we need an article about the ridiculous things employers are asking for to balance out the cat people. Jeez.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Like I said I have read every article and know what not to do in an interview. That doesn’t mean I can’t have disdain for the absolute dysfunction and lack of logic of the hiring processes at companies now a days. That wasn’t an isolated incident. The thing I learned is that when HR people start giving you assignments and other nonsense they are on a power trip and jerking you arround it is best to withdrawl. I’ve had many instances of out of control HR people playing games with me which is why I hold many of them in such contempt. The sad part is they don’t have the cerebral capacity to recognize that their dumb gimics with no logical basis are not only failing to select for better skilled employees they are actaully driving the more in demand candidates away. Who would put up with that if they had better options. While your HR is busy playing games with Joe Genius your competitor will snap him up. </p>
<p>Why shouldn’t I have posted that crap all over the net and publicly shamed the company? I am never going to work for those lunatics.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Interview questions are hardly secret. And if those are the people the company wants, let them have each other.</p>
<p>Google Glass Door. It’s a website where employees and prospective employees can post and share anything about their work environment, interview process, etc. And sschoe2, that’s a great place to let others know what they are in for. ;)</p>
<p>I guess the point I am making is that businesses and HR are calling milenials a bunch of idiots that is like the pot calling the kettle black. Look at all the dumb stuff they do. I yearn for the days when who gets hired was based on who was the most qualified and not all these junk science HR gimics like Psychometric testing, behavioural interviews, essays, computer software screening programs etc…</p>
<p>Essays are only junk science if companies don’t care if their employees can write an error- free sentence or email.</p>
<p>Gimics? And you’re complaining about taking a writing test?</p>
<p>^ good point blossom. </p>
<p>I can understand frustration with a lengthy hiring process, but imho you sound very critical of others and awfully angry, having a hard time simply accepting certain practices that many companies choose to use in order to find what you call “the most qualified” I’m curious, how would you suggest a hiring manager determine the most qualified person? one reason they use quantifiable methods is so that there is consistency in hiring practices, which creates more fairness to all. they aren’t on a power trip or trying to jerk you around.</p>
<p>Quote:
"I yearn for the days when who gets hired was based on who was the most qualified and not all these junk science HR gimics like Psychometric testing, behavioural interviews, essays, computer software screening programs etc… </p>
<p>How about we start with the same exact premise for college application essays. As for the HR people, you know what they say “Those who can’t do teach. Those who can’t teach, teach gym. Those who can’t teach gym, go into HR”</p>
<p>I would have had no issue if they asked me to write a business email or a small scientific piece but go back and read that “assigmnent” It looks like something from third grade it was bloody humiliating. Also, what is the point? Even if I couldn’t produce it I could plaguerize it in less than 1 minute.</p>
<p>As for psychometric testing and behavioural interviewing those things are total BS junk science. Behavioral profiling is dubious even when practiced by FBI experts with multiple graduate degrees (see Richard Jewel case) the idea that some HR person with a mickey mouse degree can do better is laughable and arrogant beyond belief. Everyone I know has had the same experience I have. They failed one or two before decoding what the ideal anwsers were and from that point on they BSed their way through it. They make up stories for STAR interviews ahead of time. Do you honestly think someone is goint to come to an interview and tell you about the time they stole a coworkers lunch or got into an altercation with someone truthfully with no spin? Sociopathic people often are quite charming and are great manipulators and fakers. These gimics are not going to weed them out.</p>
<p>I currently run an industrial lab. I would absolutely not pick someone using that trash. I want someone in my lab who knows how to properly use and maintain the equipment not some hack HR picked because they anwsered their behaviour question the best. I would ask technical questions in the interview to ensure their competency, made sure they could act in a professional manner at the interview and pick the most qualified one. I wouldn’t base my decission on who had the most eloquant BS anwsers to typical irrelevant interview questions.</p>
<p>I am firmly aware that most companies believe interviews are effective means of selection and that HR actually knows what they are doing. Just like at one time people were convinced the earth was flat, the sun revolved arround the earth, petting a toad could cause warts and many other forms of nonsense people come to believe and it is very difficult to disabuse them of such notions.</p>
<p>Several years ago, I agreed to an “informational interview” with a recent Harvard College female grad whom I didn’t personally know, nor had she been referred to me through a friend or acquaintance. It was truly a “cold call” through an alumni association, phrased as “meet to explore profession”. The young woman arrived dressed appropriately and promptly on time, etc. However, interview itself quickly veered into “how are you going to help me get a job”, and not any position, because she wanted “exec-track position” and my explicit assistance in obtaining such. There was no modesty involved, and furthermore, her resume had major typing/grammar errors and she had little prior understanding about profession-at-large. Needless to say, I didn’t open my rolodex to help this person out.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I cannot imagine that the specific department interested in hiring a chemist would be the slightest bit interested in making its hiring decisions based on the results of such a ridiculous essay. HR is free to do this when hiring additional HR personnel, but otherwise it is basically interfering with effective and appropriate hiring methods company-wide in order to build and maintain its own intra-corporate fiefdom. </p>
<p>I agree with sschoe2 that the candidates with the best technical skills will have multiple options and go elsewhere; only the desperate would put up with this. Which may actually be the point if the company intends to make low-ball offers.</p>
<p>The department might not care about the essay, but typically hiring goes to hr four them to weed out the candidates and then they give the possibilities to the department.</p>
<p>If hr axes your application based on ash essay the department will never see the rest of your application.</p>
<p>
This was my take also. Just as the top 200 colleges have too many applicants, so they make the applicants write additional essays, maybe companies, in this difficult economy, are doing the same thing. I agree it’s stupid, but it may be a reasonable way to weed out the people who do automated resume blasts. Yuck.</p>
<p>It is not a reasonable way to weed candidates it is a BS lazy way to annoy candidates to the point they withdrawl and many of those people “weeded” are the most talented because they are in such high demand that they have no reason to put up with being jerked arround by flunkees in HR.</p>
<p>sschoe2, perhaps a funny story. I was interviewing at a company (one you’ve all heard of but I won’t mention by name) and all of the interviewers were engineers from the company and none were HR. They prefaced with interview with “We don’t really care about any of these questions, but HR makes us ask them so…” and they continued with the general behavioral questions. </p>
<p>If the interviewer doesn’t care about the questions they’re asking, the hiring practices certainly aren’t working.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I suppose it depends on what the company’s real goal is. If it’s to hire the most competent applicant for a given job, this process is a failure. If it’s to hire the applicant most willing to put up with any crap the boss decides to throw at him, then, yes, it’s an effective strategy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How many companies really need smart people for entry level jobs? It’s a pretty small number I’d wager, even in educated work like Engineering. I think it stands to reason that for a majority of jobs, being able to tolerate crap is probably more valued than intelligence or competence. At least that’s what my very limited experience has taught me.</p>
<p>Yep the behavioral interviewing has become a popular HR fad. HR people in their severely limited intilect believe that bad employees will show up tell you about their antisocial and irresponsible behavior and they can be rejected easily.</p>
<p>What it really measures is the ability to spin together some nice sounding fake stories and BS your way through the interview. It’s the same with those dumb psychometric tests it assumes someone will anwser truthfully and be a good impartial evaluator of their own personality and furthermore that the rediculously simplistic test can give an accurate pschological profile better than a trained FBI behavioural analyst.</p>
<p>All these inteview gimics do is measure sales/BSing ability and frankly many professions especially technical the best BSers are often the worst employees.</p>
<p>I think companies need to have a realistic expectation of what they can get from an interview. You can tell if the person is not a total putz and can act in a professional manner when required. That is it. Anything more and you are just diluding yourself. You are not Aeron Hotchner from Criminal Minds.</p>
<p>I interview people all the time for speech pathology jobs, and I consider myself very good at it. I was shocked recently when a new employee told me that she thought my interview style was probably the toughest one she has had, because normally interviewees say that they really enjoyed being interviewed by us, and that it felt more like a conversation between friends. </p>
<p>When I queried this person, and later other employees they all agreed that our interview was sneakily very tough - watch out for people like me! We always meet at a restaurant, and I would describe my business partner and I as informal and very approachable. We ask questions, are free with career advice, fair with our assessments, and generally look not only for good candidates, but ways to help the new grads in particular if tehy chose to go with someone else. The result is that they feel very, very comfortable with us. This sometimes causes them to reveal stories and issues unintentionally - such as the one who revealed that her boyfriend taught her how to steal apps, because she needed them for grad school and couldn’t afford them. I don’t know that she even realized what she said. Or the candidate who told three stories in a row where she had conflicts with supervisors. Mmmmm. </p>
<p>I love our style, and typically by the time we interview someone I have done enough pre-screening by phone that we almost always offer a job. It is a great way to see if they fit with our informal but focused style, are passionate about their profession, and can think on their feet. I almost always pose a current difficult problem that we are having with one of our students and ask how they would handle it. LOTS more insight than “what kind of fruit would you be.” </p>
<p>Just thought I would share - I am sure I am not the only one who has this interview style!</p>