gap between classing dates and interview.

studentphil

TOBRUK wrote: »

Phil, did you make an appointment with the Disabled Employment advisor at the job centre as you said you would - just guessing here but probably not as you are a talker not a doer! You make an appointment, you would get help there with application and interview skills and also with your condition could go on new deal for disabled.

Like savvy-sue I sound like a broken record and you are doing everyone's head in! As many have told you including myself, don't apply for anymore jobs just get on with revising and getting your degree first.

Yes, they say it is best to complete my course first as I am not fully available for work yet and then they will help me with benefits and jobs and so on.

brazilianwax

studentphil wrote: »

I do not mean to sound like a broken record. BW tells me that you can make your application fit regardless of age or experience and there is no reason other than a bad application for not getting an interview.
Which maybe conflicts with what Sue says that it is far more complex than that and your application can be great but often there can be loads of other people just as good and it is very easy to miss out.


Maybe those two do marry together, but I have one of a flaw in application and the otherside of limits in numbers means I am missing out. So it is all confusing as I do not think I can ever find out which one it is. I might be tempted to think it is a flaw in my application, however, as I have really only applied to one employer, which will be a very popular one, I can not say it is a universal flaw in my application.


I think I will give applying for jobs a break and sort my essays first.

Maybe I should widen my search more too.

Sue is right, in some cases. I never set a number of candidates to interview as it's a bit of a dangerous game (in my view). My panels interview anyone that meets the criteria. Anyone not getting through the sift gets feedback on their application, and then anyone not getting through the interview gets feedback too.

It's quite low volume though - but I did operate on the same basis when there would be up to a hundred applicants for each job.

TOBRUK

Hurray a breakthrough :T :T , you did actually take advice and do something ... I am shocked, but you did see the disabled employment officer didn't you, did you? Not sure whether to believe you!

Now just do us all a favour and concentrate on your studies and don't do another thing until the end of your exams.

studentphil

brazilianwax wrote: »

Sue is right, in some cases. I never set a number of candidates to interview as it's a bit of a dangerous game (in my view). My panels interview anyone that meets the criteria. Anyone not getting through the sift gets feedback on their application, and then anyone not getting through the interview gets feedback too.

It's quite low volume though - but I did operate on the same basis when there would be up to a hundred applicants for each job.

Oh right, now I understand and I think I have been unwise mainly in having this idea in my head of a university or nothing and that puts the odds of getting a job up because they are so popular for applications because they seem to use Sue's method of recruitment.

Cheers for clearing that up!

studentphil

TOBRUK wrote: »

Hurray a breakthrough :T :T , you did actually take advice and do something ... I am shocked, but you did see the disabled employment officer didn't you, did you? Not sure whether to believe you!

Now just do us all a favour and concentrate on your studies and don't do another thing until the end of your exams.

I will stick to dealing with my exams. It was just a general person but I am not classed as a job seeker or unemployed until my course finishes which is early June.

Savvy_Sue

brazilianwax wrote: »

Sue is right, in some cases. I never set a number of candidates to interview as it's a bit of a dangerous game (in my view). My panels interview anyone that meets the criteria. Anyone not getting through the sift gets feedback on their application, and then anyone not getting through the interview gets feedback too.

It's quite low volume though - but I did operate on the same basis when there would be up to a hundred applicants for each job.

yes, I hope I've never said this is ALWAYS what happens, but my experience is slanted towards the kinds of area I think Phil is most likely to succeed (rather than the cutthroat commercial world or The Apprentice!)

So it IS how things were done years ago when I worked at a University, and it IS how things were done when I was helping to run out of school clubs, and it IS how things were done when I was directly involved in recruiting (admin staff as it happens) for a Housing Association, and it is how we do things where I work now (small charity).

These are all places where Equal Ops rule (except that we don't employ women, legally, in the charity). So you don't look at the personal information - name, gender, age - and if challenged you can always give an OBJECTIVE reason why Candidate A was preferred over Candidate B. Especially if either of them is likely to call 'foul' on racial or gender grounds, and these days on disability or age grounds too!

In fact I vividly remember interviewing someone who looked plausible on paper, but was clearly completely daffy! The manager I was working with had worked with her elsewhere, so was not surprised by her answers. After she'd left I turned to him and asked why we'd had to interview her if he knew she was like that? He said he didn't want to prejudice me against her. Well, she'd done that quite successfully by herself!

We would always give feedback if asked. Whether the feedback I've been aware of would be helpful to Phil is another matter: if it was a straightforward case of "Your application did not DEMONSTRATE that you met the requirements of the job description or person spec" I would be willing to go through point by point where it was weak, but I would not be prepared to argue about it. It doesn't DEMONSTRATE it if I and a colleague can't SEE it, clearly and concisely, in your application. So you telling me that you know you can do the job is a waste of breath, because you haven't convinced me in the only place it matters, on the application form.

And telling me that I should realise that doing X, Y and Z would give you experience of something I say you haven't DEMONSTRATED is also a waste of breath: if you want me to operate a switchboard, I'll tell you where I've operated a switchboard, not leave you to assume that line managing a team including the switchboard operator obviously includes covering for him/her on occasion!

If an application is just weaker than the others received, then that's what I'll say. "We had some strong candidates, on this occasion you were not successful." But I'll only say that if I'm asked directly - our 'regret' letter does not offer false hope to weak candidates, it just says you weren't successful.

I don't know what field you work in, BW, or how many people are needed for each interview. But when you have to get together me, a manager, and someone from the Personnel office (in another town), it's not a trivial process and you only want to do it once. We would, on occasion, hold a small group of candidates in reserve in case our first choices weren't available or interested in coming any more, although tbh the choice was usually so limited that this didn't often happen.

With the charity, the interviewing team involves volunteers as well as staff, so it's even less likely that we'll be able to spend more than a day on the process.

I suppose at some point we'll get started on interviews. I have conducted some dire interviews ... I still don't know how two applicants REACHED the interview stage when their practical tests demonstrated all too well that they couldn't type. Maybe they lied, maybe we were desperate, but the moral is DON'T lie because if there is a practical test at interview and you flunk it, you're doomed!

But it does show that you CAN fill in an application form sufficiently well to get to interview even though your experience is severely limited ...

brazilianwax

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

I don't know what field you work in, BW, or how many people are needed for each interview. But when you have to get together me, a manager, and someone from the Personnel office (in another town), it's not a trivial process and you only want to do it once. We would, on occasion, hold a small group of candidates in reserve in case our first choices weren't available or interested in coming any more, although tbh the choice was usually so limited that this didn't often happen.

I'm the HR Manager for a Government Department in London. We have a second office 170 miles from our London office, and for the majority of the interview panels we need to have someone from another office there. We work with panels of 3 or 4 too - getting a slot in the diary can be a nightmare.

I have a particularly awkward one right now - we have 10 applicants for a post. Potentially they will all be interviewed, so I need someone from the other office to be in London - either for a very long day of interviews, or 2 days of interviews. However, anyone that passes the sift will be interviewed.

I always have a plan B (always wise when public transport is involved :rolleyes:), and will do everything I can to get it done the first time round. That said, I'd rather the hassle of running a recruitment again than have the panel recruit someone sub-standard - it just causes more problems in the longer term.

studentphil

It is very difficult when you apply for jobs and you really do not know your customer(employer) in terms of personally their thoughts and feelings and ideas about who they want to appoint.

In sense it is hard at university in that many of the top people are scientists and they most likely do not have time Philosophers as philosophers do tend to be very difficult people in that they find it hard not to question authories and that is a main reason why philosophy is not encouraged in schools as pupils would then attempt to question their teachers more. So I can see it that in academic politics that being from a philosophy background does not help.

Philosophy is bad for employment in that it encourages you to say when you think something is wrong and I doubt that goes down well with many bosses.

brazilianwax

Not true.

The Director of my organisation is a philosophy graduate. As is my favourite colleague - a very senior man.

They are both very different, both in their 40s, and both have different approaches. I didn't know that the non-Director was a philosophy graduate because he seemed so normal! The reason I like him is because, like me, we operate on a common sense basis, and improving things is something we are both good at. There is a right way and a wrong way to do that though.

The Director is a bit more flimsy in his thinking. :rolleyes:

But the point is that they both came in at the bottom, new out of uni, and have worked their way up to the top.

Phil, if you define yourself forever only as a philosopher, you may struggle. If you work hard, and learn about the world of work, your philosophy degree could benefit you, and enable you to actively improve places. But don;t run before you can walk.

melancholly

studentphil wrote: »

It is very difficult when you apply for jobs and you really do not know your customer(employer) in terms of personally their thoughts and feelings and ideas about who they want to appoint.

In sense it is hard at university in that many of the top people are scientists and they most likely do not have time Philosophers as philosophers do tend to be very difficult people in that they find it hard not to question authories and that is a main reason why philosophy is not encouraged in schools as pupils would then attempt to question their teachers more. So I can see it that in academic politics that being from a philosophy background does not help.

Philosophy is bad for employment in that it encourages you to say when you think something is wrong and I doubt that goes down well with many bosses.

in all aspects of science, you have to question whether any evidence does what it says it does - it's called critical thinking and it is not a skill unique to philosphers!

please stop using your subject choice as an excuse for everything - a philosophy course is as much use to an employer in business as cell biology, maths or english. many employers prefer you not to have done a business related degree as it means you are a blank canvas and can be taught their way of doing things more easily.

if anyone went into a job with no experience and kept telling their boss they were wrong, it would go down badly.... that's a poor decision and should be blamed on shocking inter-personal skills and not on a subject!

seeing as you haven't had an interview yet, let alone any work experience or a job, maybe you could try to open up your mind (in a philosophical way if that helps you) and get rid of your baseless inaccurate generalisations.