6 People Hired, 3 Rejected and I'm 1 of the 3

dickydonkin

Proc wrote: »

Does it really need to be told that you must always get the basics such as spelling correct when applying to a job?

If you were to walk into a car showroom, you would expect the motors to be immaculate. Imagine if you took a car for a test drive; it's covered in mud and horse crap, has tissues and empty coke cans rolling around inside the car, and has dust everywhere. All easily fixable problems, that don't really effect the car that much. However, it would speak volumes about the dealer. Do they care about their products? Are they professional? Is image not important to them? Do they take their customers seriously?

I wouldn't buy a car in this state.

Yet this is exactly what you've done. Your email is the unwashed car. It speaks volumes about you as a person, and they're probably asking what kind of person you are if you can't even bother to get these simple things perfect.

First impressions count for a lot more than what you'd expect.

Don't usually agree with Proc, but the above analogy is a good one and the message it portrays is absolutely spot on in my opinion.

viktory

OneOfTheUnemployed wrote: »

Hi,

Yesterday was the first interview of my life for a job and I got rejected. Now I don't know what to do. I have applied for many jobs but with this job I really thought that I could get it.

This was their response.

The most important section of the test for the recruiting managers is the Email covering letter, as this is a chance to see candidates grammar and spelling (as we are client-facing and rely on email correspondence). Unfortunately your submission contained a number of spelling errors and a lack of attention to detail as the submission sheet was not placed on top as requested. In addition to this, you were rated on your group presentation exercise in which the managers did not feel that you were listening to the other members of the group.

I understand the situation as that I was technically capable of the job but slipped up on the grammar, spelling and presentation.

These day I am just too used to a computer and it auto corrects my spelling and for the presentation I don't know why but the audience always feels that I am quite arrogant when talking. I don't know why but I tend to talk down to people when presenting. I think the presenting could be because I used to be an actor about 5 years ago.

All advice is appreciated, I need it.

That was excellent feedback - you can really learn from it. My advice so take some lessons in English and punctuation. Stop relying on the computer. Practise your handwriting. Practice presentations. Keep trying and keep applying.

Just goes to show - if you pick anyone up on their spelling and punctuation on here, you get slated, but it might actually help them.

robpw2

viktory wrote: »

That was excellent feedback - you can really learn from it. My advice so take some lessons in English and punctuation. Stop relying on the computer. Practise your handwriting. Practice presentations. Keep trying and keep applying.

Just goes to show - if you pick anyone up on their spelling and punctuation on here, you get slated, but it might actually help them.

perhaps the company who sent the email should consider checking their own:rotfl:

olly300

OneOfTheUnemployed wrote: »

I understand the situation as that I was technically capable of the job but slipped up on the grammar, spelling and presentation.

These day I am just too used to a computer and it auto corrects my spelling

Then you need to get into the habit of handwriting things. Start writing letters to people. Very odd I know but that is one way to practise. In addition as I've always been bad with spelling I had to learn to formulate my sentences before I wrote them down in case I couldn't spell a word.

OneOfTheUnemployed wrote: »

and for the presentation I don't know why but the audience always feels that I am quite arrogant when talking. I don't know why but I tend to talk down to people when presenting. I think the presenting could be because I used to be an actor about 5 years ago.

I don't think that is a valid excuse. I know plenty of people who have done lots of acting. They don't talk down to people. In fact the people I find who talk down to people tend to be primary school teachers.

viktory

robpw2 wrote: »

perhaps the company who sent the email should consider checking their own:rotfl:

I suspect that was a simple typo - it happens. Sounds like the OP's work has riddled with mistakes.

anamenottaken

If the email applying for the job had grammatical and spelling mistakes and they say they rejected him on this basis (as well as the "not listening" factor), then why did they get as far as interviewing him? Does it not mean that they would have accepted the poor written communication if he had passed the oral presentation?

HO87

anamenottaken wrote: »

If the email applying for the job had grammatical and spelling mistakes and they say they rejected him on this basis (as well as the "not listening" factor), then why did they get as far as interviewing him? Does it not mean that they would have accepted the poor written communication if he had passed the oral presentation?

I don't believe so. It simply means that the OP met a set of criteria established to enable a sifting for interview. Interview criteria do not necessarily match those set out in a person specification especially where you're looking to recruit into a specialist area and the potential pool is small.

I can recall an instance a few years ago where I was interviewing for a particular post that would traditionally be regarded as requiring some quite specific experience and which was set out in the advert. One of the applicants had none but had other experience that when I considered it had a relevance albeit in a slightly off-the-wall way. He didn't match the person spec but fulfilled the interview criteria. By the way, he interviewed exceptionally well and was the one I ultimately appointed.

jadex

HO87 wrote: »

My particular bugbear are those letters/cv's that have been spell-checked - but spell-checked with the default English (U.S.) dictionary to produce "recognize" rather than recognise, or "totaling" rather than totalling. I think we sometimes forget that we actually speak English not Yanklish.

That's interesting point - thanks for sharing.
I do not use automatic spell checker so it is not something relevant to me.
But, I can quite confidently say, US English IS the standard one when it comes to what people are taught as a foreign language
Didn't realize it is a no-no here in the UK.

andygb

jadex wrote: »

That's interesting point - thanks for sharing.
I do not use automatic spell checker so it is not something relevant to me.
But, I can quite confidently say, US English IS the standard one when it comes to what people are taught as a foreign language
Didn't realize it is a no-no here in the UK.

So, you think that "US English" is standard do you? Well I suggest that the clue is in the name - "English", from ENGLAND, not some "!!!!!!!ised" language from North America, a land where the majority of people have never ventured abroad.
End of rant.

I would suggest to the OP, that this would be an opportunity to improve grammar, spelling and concentration, because the six people selected were better in those areas. This was the very first interview, and you have been provided with valuable experience, and more importantly feedback on where to improve next time.
Good luck,
Andy

wontfallforit

That's quite a specific rejection letter, and in a way you're lucky to get it, as many candidates get the bog standard "thanks but no thanks".

They've highlighted two areas in which they feel you underperformed - spelling and grammar, and listening skills. Perhaps brush up on these in the near future, and best of luck in any further applications.