Confused Regarding Rejection

Cotta

choyaa wrote: »

Just to confirm, the outcome of the role I originally posted about is still unknown.

Okay on the original interview here is my summation and I'm trying to be as respectful as possible.

1. Company rejected you previously for a lower role, this is a bad omen.

2. Interview went over an hour longer than originally stated.

3. You indicated a lack of rapport with the main interviewer.

4. There were questions specific to the company you failed to answer.

5. You were told you would know within one week and it's now long over a week.

I am truly sorry, I wish I had good news for you but the signs are obvious, I'm shocked that I seem to be the only person thinking this is all pointing in the same direction.

Fluff15

Cotta wrote: »

Okay on the original interview here is my summation and I'm trying to be as respectful as possible.

1. Company rejected you previously for a lower role, this is a bad omen.

2. Interview went over an hour longer than originally stated.

3. You indicated a lack of rapport with the main interviewer.

4. There were questions specific to the company you failed to answer.

5. You were told you would know within one week and it's now long over a week.

I am truly sorry, I wish I had good news for you but the signs are obvious, I'm shocked that I seem to be the only person thinking this is all pointing in the same direction.

Why are you so negative? What are you getting out of this thread by going on and on about how you don't think OP got the job, apart from to spread your negativity?

Cotta

Fluff15 wrote: »

Why are you so negative? What are you getting out of this thread by going on and on about how you don't think OP got the job, apart from to spread your negativity?

It's my honest assessment, do you not agree?

[Deleted User]

Cotta wrote: »

It's my honest assessment, do you not agree?

It's not exactly a constructive assessment, is it?

Cotta

ringo_24601 wrote: »

It's not exactly a constructive assessment, is it?

I think at this stage I've been proven correct.

Fluff15

Cotta wrote: »

It's my honest assessment, do you not agree?

Having been offered jobs directly after interview, as well as six weeks after interview, no I do not agree at all.

The OPs thread isn't a place for you to be proven 'correct', and your incessant desire to be proven as such is childish and boring.

shaz77_2

choyaa wrote: »

Granted it was an uncomfortable interview.

I tried to counter my lack of answers on specifics regarding the company at the end by asking about training and I got a detailed answer with even names of who would be carrying it out (people I had not met).

I wonder why they went into this level of detail if you weren't a serious candidate?

choyaa

Fluff15 wrote: »

Having been offered jobs directly after interview, as well as six weeks after interview, no I do not agree at all.

The OPs thread isn't a place for you to be proven 'correct', and your incessant desire to be proven as such is childish and boring.

I fear he may be correct.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

Cotta wrote: »

It's my honest assessment, do you not agree?

I don't agree. 1, 2 and 4 are idiotic things to see as negative.

1 - not positive or negative; they simply thought she might be a better fit for a different role but it's up to the other interviewers
2 - People don't choose to waste huge amounts of time on people who have no chance
4 - this can happen to everyone; they don't care.

Quite possibly they haven't got the job. You were still wrong to assume she wouldn't for these reasons. Now why don't you shut up?

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

choyaa wrote: »

I fear he may be correct.

No, he's wrong. Even if you don't get the job, you shouldn't have assumed you hadn't because of his idiotic reasoning. There was always more chance you wouldn't get it as get it if there were more than 2 candidates so he's hardly Nostra-bloody-damus.