Not offered interview by NHS despite meeting all criteria for Guaranteed Interview Scheme

Red-Squirrel_2

ReadingTim wrote: »

Well, if they ask, provide it. The point, which seems to have escaped you, if that if they don't ask, it's superfluous, if not completely irrelevant information.

Unless of course you're the sort of person who also adds their 25 meter swimming badge, and scouts award for woggle tying to their CV....

BSC, SSC. What’s your point?

GlasweJen

ReadingTim wrote: »

Try re-reading my post, with specific reference to the text in the 2nd set of brackets. English and maths are the exceptions.

Maths/physics was just an example. A favourite at my old work was "ECDL or equivalent" now who under the age of 30 bothers with the ECDL? It's such a basic qualification and covers things that high schools teach their first and second years, an ECDL is like asking a millennial to prove they passed primary 4 arithmetic. So your millennial sends in an application with qualifications that clearly show they are of the modern generation (national 5s instead of standard grades), Grunthilda at sifting doesn't see ECDL so bins the application.

TyreLever

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

That's one side of overqualified.

The other side is "What on earth are they applying for this for? Why can't they get a better job? There must be something wrong with them."

You've just posted one answer to your own question. People can't get jobs because they are turned down for all manner of reasons, and some of these (such as the example you gave) are absurd.

I'm glad I am no longer in the job market, but I am definitely capable of doing better than I am now. I can't do better tho because nobody is willing to train me or if I paid to do some sort of training, give me the necessary experience. It seems no matter how you put yourself to an employer, there will always be some fault that someone can dismiss you for.

Newly qualified? You lack experience
Highly qualified? Over qualified
Vast experience and lots of talent? You're a job hopper/as above
No experience or qualifications? ****in useless!
Long gaps in employment history? Lazy or unwilling
Me pointing these things out? Too pessimistic.

Les79

ReadingTim wrote: »

If the degrees are cumulative (ie undergrad, postgrad) then simply state the highest level one - the others are implicit. It's like saying "I have GCSEs, A-Levels and a degree" - the first 2 are (almost, with the exception of stating you've passed English and Maths) irrelevant. If you've had a career change, omit the irrelevant one, or at least discount it for qualifications - you could mention it in interests or other info (like holding a full clean driving licence) if you like.

At best, highlighting having 2 degrees is including irrelevant information. At worst, it suggests you're struggling with employment outside of academia, so overall seems to do more harm than good, IMHO.

To be fair I don't think it is a big deal to list qualifications cumulatively, even if you include A-levels and GCSEs. If you are at, say, masters level then it is implied that you've had quite a bit of time previously out of work!

I made my point because whenever I hear "I have 2 degrees" it, to me, suggests that the person is talking about 2x undergraduate qualifications (BSC/BA etc) and that sort of thing doesn't immediately make sense to me (it does suggest that someone struggles with employment outside of academia, to some people). After reading through this thread, I suspect that people use the word "degree" to also refer to qualifications beyond undergraduate.

shortcrust

TyreLever wrote: »

You've just posted one answer to your own question. People can't get jobs because they are turned down for all manner of reasons, and some of these (such as the example you gave) are absurd.

I'm glad I am no longer in the job market, but I am definitely capable of doing better than I am now. I can't do better tho because nobody is willing to train me or if I paid to do some sort of training, give me the necessary experience. It seems no matter how you put yourself to an employer, there will always be some fault that someone can dismiss you for.

Newly qualified? You lack experience
Highly qualified? Over qualified
Vast experience and lots of talent? You're a job hopper/as above
No experience or qualifications? ****in useless!
Long gaps in employment history? Lazy or unwilling
Me pointing these things out? Too pessimistic.

You talk as if it's the universal experience rather than your personal experience. With shoulders like that you should open a chip shop!

People who are turned down for jobs are turned down because there is a better applicant, not because employers are pantomime villains who want to screw you over.

Doodles

You may think you meet the minimum criteria, but the shortlisters did not.

You may think you have put in a strong and robust application, but the reality is that the shortlisters did not agree.

You do not need to be raising a FOI for this!

However, it would be right for you to expect an explanation on the reasons for not putting your application through to interview stage, and that is good you've done that, just in case the shortlisters have missed something in error.

I shortlist and interview a fair bit (I work for the NHS) and I've sometimes seen a candidate come back to HR, very confidently insisting we've made a mistake as they "definitely meet the criteria". But the reality is their application isn't as good as they believe it to be, and they simply don't meet all minimum criteria. Sorry to be blunt, and I am not suggesting that you are definitely in this category. But please do push them on an answer, as their response will help you for further applications you put in.

TyreLever

shortcrust wrote: »

You talk as if it's the universal experience rather than your personal experience. With shoulders like that you should open a chip shop!

People who are turned down for jobs are turned down because there is a better applicant, not because employers are pantomime villains who want to screw you over.

A combination of personal experience and based on what others have said or posted online. Granted its not scientific. Such things ultimately end up chipping away at my shoulders. I have also worked with some right muppets which in my view is further evidence that the recruitment process often falls short of adequate.

VfM4meplse

shortcrust wrote: »

I think two degrees are a warning flag to an employer rather than a plus. We all know people who thrive in academia but struggle in employment.

I think it reveals much more about the cut of the employing manager: it would take a very self-assured individual to want to hire someone they perceive to be a threat to their own job (that being the culture of the NHS) or likely to move on quickly (which I have some sympathy with as training uncommitted people up for a role is thankless).

Dredging up this thread again because I have a question about the GIS: AFAIK the "disability" is self-declared. The definition of a disabled person is that contained in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and applies to NHS jobs is:

‘Someone who has a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long term effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities’. This includes people who have had a disability in the past, if that disability is likely to reoccur. The disability must have lasted or be expected to last at least 12 months.’

This seems clear cut enough: its about the individual's own assessment of their functional ability, although "substantial" is a subjective measure. I'd be interested to hear of any cases where this declaration has come back to bite them. (I'm aware this is illegal!).

sangie595

The DDA was repealed in 2010. It's the Equality Act.

Your query is unclear. I'm not aware how a self-declaration comes back to bite someone. Do you mean where an employer considers someone not disabled? And what is illegal? If someone claims a disability falsely then taking action against them isn't illegal. Nor unlawful either, because this is civil law, not criminal law.

Your question is too general to answer meaningfully.

Undervalued

VfM4meplse wrote: »

This seems clear cut enough: its about the individual's own assessment of their functional ability, although "substantial" is a subjective measure. I'd be interested to hear of any cases where this declaration has come back to bite them. (I'm aware this is illegal!).

Well technically making any kind of false statement to a potential employer, with the intention of increasing your chance of getting a job, is fraud. Lying about qualifications or past experiences are the most obvious ones. However I see no reason why falsely claiming to be disabled (or more seriously disabled), if that somehow increases your chances of getting the job, could not be regarded in the same way.

OK, unless it is extreme or an attempt to get a job in a regulated profession the chances of criminal prosecution are not very high, however it is still an illegal act.