Civil Service Jobs application process - general observation

NeilCr

gettingready wrote: »

As nobody looks at competencies of the people who fail the test - that restriction point is not really valid, is it?

See theoretica's post. That was what I was going to say

The restriction point is that a number of people will not start the process at all.

Manxman_in_exile

gettingready wrote: »

As nobody looks at competencies of the people who fail the test - that restriction point is not really valid, is it?

I understand your point completely from an applicant's point of view - but you also need to understand the logic from the recruiter's POV,. They want to cast the net wide enough to get good candidates, but not so wide that their systems are bogged down with potential "timewasters". (See post #31 and various others).


At the end of the day the CS clearly think it makes sense to do it this way. They don't care if you spend 6 hours detailing your competencies and subsequently fail the aptitude tests.

gettingready

NeilCr wrote: »

See theoretica's post. That was what I was going to say

The restriction point is that a number of people will not start the process at all.

But even if they do "start the process" - they never get looked at if they do not pass the test which is sent out after submitting competencies but before anyone checks/marks those anyway so it makes no difference whatsoever from the employer's point of view to the number of applications they look at in the end.

If the competencies were marked/sifted BEFORE a link to the test was sent ie link to test based on scores on competencies - that would make sense.

But the link to tests is sent regardless so is not restrictive in any way.

gettingready

theoretica wrote: »

So you really think there are no job seekers who look at the form requiring them to fill in the compentencies and think 'nah, too much work' and don't apply? These are the people we are talking about.

Of course there are, a lot of those. But this is not the point - as I tried to explain several times

May try again step by step tomorrow... Have a good night everyone

hyubh

gettingready wrote: »

There seem to be a bit of confusion.

Some posters are generalising beyond your original scenario, and others (like me) are responding to that.

Personally, I would never apply for a 'pure civil service' job unless truly desperate. On the other hand, I've worked in local government before, and would be open to working in it in the future. I also appreciate the civil service won't operate in recruitment and other matters like an SME, or even an LA... since it isn't an SME, and it's undesirable to make it pretend to be one. (E.g., I think your claim about the universal superiority of a CV-based recruitment process completely impractical.)

I am not sure how else to try to explain the obvious lack of logic in the order things are asked for.

Failing to appreciate the desirability of a bar to no-hopers is, you might say, an 'obvious lack of logic'. (I don't know whether that is the reason. But it seems a plausible rationalisation at least.)

I have done a lot of contracting when I sent a CV one day and started the job the next day

I don't want my taxes going on a civil service that is so incompetent at planning its own recruitment that it works like that.

Malthusian

The famously difficult civil service exams in Imperial China (for the original mandarins) required applicants to have a detailed knowledge of maths, essay-writing, Confucianism, religious custom, music, horsemanship and archery. Classic texts needed to be learned by heart and a single misspelling (in an alphabet with thousands of characters) meant failure, so some students smuggled the texts in by writing them out on their underwear. This at a time when most people were illiterate. Today's civil service applicants have it pretty easy.

Fireflyaway

Tell them. Sometimes it takes someone to highlight these things for change to come about. Yeah people will laugh at my suggestion but its possible. No point moaning quietly, some constructive feedback from someone who has been through the process might be welcomed.

powerful_Rogue

gettingready wrote: »

ReadingTim - are you serious?

Can you not see the total lack of logic in this type of application process and how much time is being wasted?

And your last statement - wawwwwwww, easy there

Because of those forms and procedures Civil Service is losing out on potentially gaining real talent as guess what? If anyone has a choice to

a) Send in a CV (we are in 21st century) and have a decision within a week

b) Fill in endless forms, do endless tests, wait for potential interview for weeks and then decision for several more weeks

Guess which one will the person go for?

Let me give you and example or two.

Someone I know applied for w Work Coach role wit DWP - the whole process from application to interview took about 2 months and then another 3 months to be notified if she got a job or not.

I myself applied for a job with MoJ in Jan, had an interview early March and only LAST WEEK I got an email with a job offer.

In the same week when I had an interview at MoJ, I also had an interview somewhere else with much simplified application process. And I was offered the job 2 days after my interview and started early May. I would have started earlier but had to wait for a SC. My office is at Millbank (work this out).

So Civil Service application process needs to get out of a cave and move on with times.

Misses just applied for a job with the DWP.

Application in on the 24th July
Judgement test & Verbal reasoning test completed on the 25th July.

Contacted by phone on the 26th July and interview booked for the 1st August.

gettingready

That is great, they must have looked at the previous intake total joke and improved.

BorisThomson

After your first application, how long did it take you to complete subsequent ones? The competencies are almost always the same, and they won't know (or care) if you're using the same ones again. Even on the first application they're pretty basic. What else is it that you seem to find so burdensome?