Met Eligibility Required Criteria - technical role.

[Deleted User]

Hi guys,

A colleague and I recently both applied to the Met (police) for non-operational, technical roles - which according to our current HR coordinator, "we are more than suitable for - initially, this role might feel like a step-down." - initially, it would have been a big financial step backwards!  

After getting some advice and guidance, we submitted our respective apps. Today we, got the outcome; We regret to inform you that unfortunately we are unable to progress your application as you do not meet our required eligibility criteria.

We both go identical rejections. It's weird because we both filled our "pre-application eligibility" forms together and the only difference was my caution declaration - accepted for an affray when I 20. I'm now nearly 40. My colleagues was vanilla - although she did declare her only driving offence later in the app, driving without a seatbelt if my memory serves, when she was 17 - she was 44 last week. We both passed the pre-eligibility screens anyway and we allowed to continue with apps.

It's my understanding that we would have been rejected at the pre-eligibility stage if our "offences" prohibited from applying? My colleague has a theory that what with everything going on in the world, we just got a bit of a brush off  

I'm not so sure. So I thought I'd ask here...

Any thoughts?

Thanks.

Dox

slipd said:

Hi guys,

A colleague and I recently both applied to the Met (police) for non-operational, technical roles - which according to our current HR coordinator, "we are more than suitable for - initially, this role might feel like a step-down." - initially, it would have been a big financial step backwards!  

After getting some advice and guidance, we submitted our respective apps. Today we, got the outcome; We regret to inform you that unfortunately we are unable to progress your application as you do not meet our required eligibility criteria.

We both go identical rejections. It's weird because we both filled our "pre-application eligibility" forms together and the only difference was my caution declaration - accepted for an affray when I 20. I'm now nearly 40. My colleagues was vanilla - although she did declare her only driving offence later in the app, driving without a seatbelt if my memory serves, when she was 17 - she was 44 last week. We both passed the pre-eligibility screens anyway and we allowed to continue with apps.

It's my understanding that we would have been rejected at the pre-eligibility stage if our "offences" prohibited from applying? My colleague has a theory that what with everything going on in the world, we just got a bit of a brush off  

I'm not so sure. So I thought I'd ask here...

Any thoughts?

Thanks.

Go back and ask which 'required eligibility criteria' you failed to meet, why this didn't screen you out at the pre-eligibility stage and what actions you can take to ensure you meet these criteria next time you apply. That does two things: makes it clear you are expecting a constructive response (although be reasonable about the timeframe, given the current state of the world), and that you are keen to apply again (even if you're not, it should prod them into giving you some helpful info).

[Deleted User]

Dox said:

slipd said:

Hi guys,

A colleague and I recently both applied to the Met (police) for non-operational, technical roles - which according to our current HR coordinator, "we are more than suitable for - initially, this role might feel like a step-down." - initially, it would have been a big financial step backwards!  

After getting some advice and guidance, we submitted our respective apps. Today we, got the outcome; We regret to inform you that unfortunately we are unable to progress your application as you do not meet our required eligibility criteria.

We both go identical rejections. It's weird because we both filled our "pre-application eligibility" forms together and the only difference was my caution declaration - accepted for an affray when I 20. I'm now nearly 40. My colleagues was vanilla - although she did declare her only driving offence later in the app, driving without a seatbelt if my memory serves, when she was 17 - she was 44 last week. We both passed the pre-eligibility screens anyway and we allowed to continue with apps.

It's my understanding that we would have been rejected at the pre-eligibility stage if our "offences" prohibited from applying? My colleague has a theory that what with everything going on in the world, we just got a bit of a brush off  

I'm not so sure. So I thought I'd ask here...

Any thoughts?

Thanks.

Go back and ask which 'required eligibility criteria' you failed to meet, why this didn't screen you out at the pre-eligibility stage and what actions you can take to ensure you meet these criteria next time you apply. That does two things: makes it clear you are expecting a constructive response (although be reasonable about the timeframe, given the current state of the world), and that you are keen to apply again (even if you're not, it should prod them into giving you some helpful info).

Sound advice, thank you!

Stigy

Did you meet all other pre-application eligibility standards set out by them? At this stage it's just a yes/no tick box thing, so there's only so much for them to reject you on. For your friend, If it was just the one minor motoring offence, at vetting stage this would almost certainly be okay, but when answering just yes or no to having motoring convictions, this makes it very easy for them to reject him/her. It's the same with the caution I'm afraid. Also, the fact that they said you don't meet their eligibility criteria, may be a generic response to anyone they have sifted out at the early stages. One would assume they have hundreds of applicants apply for these roles so they can easily pick and chose those they want to, and anybody who ticks all the right boxes (both metaphorically speaking and physical ticking of boxes ) is far less risk that sombody who, on the face of it has motoring convictions, and somebody who has a criminal record.

Dakta

Stigy said:

Also, the fact that they said you don't meet their eligibility criteria, may be a generic response to anyone they have sifted out at the early stages. One would assume they have hundreds of applicants apply for these roles so they can easily pick and chose those they want to, and anybody who ticks all the right boxes (both metaphorically speaking and physical ticking of boxes ) is far less risk that sombody who, on the face of it has motoring convictions, and somebody who has a criminal record.

I think you might be onto something here, I used to want to be a train driver and they get hundreds of applications for every vacancy, and there would be loads of activity on the railway forums everytime one would come up and you'd get to know a few of your fellow applicants, you quickly learn that there are often more 'tick all  boxes' applicants than they need, so frequently anybody who doesn't quite get there, even if its only in a slightly trivial way gets knocked back with a very generic response.

It's not nice, but from the other side of the table's point of view when you're swamped with applicants, all of whom fit the criteria, you've got to whittle it down somehow and you'll work your way backwards from the core criteria 

Stigy

Dakta said:

Stigy said:

Also, the fact that they said you don't meet their eligibility criteria, may be a generic response to anyone they have sifted out at the early stages. One would assume they have hundreds of applicants apply for these roles so they can easily pick and chose those they want to, and anybody who ticks all the right boxes (both metaphorically speaking and physical ticking of boxes ) is far less risk that sombody who, on the face of it has motoring convictions, and somebody who has a criminal record.

I think you might be onto something here, I used to want to be a train driver and they get hundreds of applications for every vacancy, and there would be loads of activity on the railway forums everytime one would come up and you'd get to know a few of your fellow applicants, you quickly learn that there are often more 'tick all  boxes' applicants than they need, so frequently anybody who doesn't quite get there, even if its only in a slightly trivial way gets knocked back with a very generic response.

It's not nice, but from the other side of the table's point of view when you're swamped with applicants, all of whom fit the criteria, you've got to whittle it down somehow and you'll work your way backwards from the core criteria 

Exactly. Right down to travelling distance to be honest. If applicant X lives 30 mins away from depot and applicant Y lives 15 minutes away, and other than that they are both equal in terms of the quality of their applications, but the company has a lot of whittling down to do, applicant X could easily be sifted. I am, 'coincidentally' a Trainee Train Driver.

gdeepithi

Good keepitup

Dox

slipd said:

Dox said:

slipd said:

Hi guys,

A colleague and I recently both applied to the Met (police) for non-operational, technical roles - which according to our current HR coordinator, "we are more than suitable for - initially, this role might feel like a step-down." - initially, it would have been a big financial step backwards!  

After getting some advice and guidance, we submitted our respective apps. Today we, got the outcome; We regret to inform you that unfortunately we are unable to progress your application as you do not meet our required eligibility criteria.

We both go identical rejections. It's weird because we both filled our "pre-application eligibility" forms together and the only difference was my caution declaration - accepted for an affray when I 20. I'm now nearly 40. My colleagues was vanilla - although she did declare her only driving offence later in the app, driving without a seatbelt if my memory serves, when she was 17 - she was 44 last week. We both passed the pre-eligibility screens anyway and we allowed to continue with apps.

It's my understanding that we would have been rejected at the pre-eligibility stage if our "offences" prohibited from applying? My colleague has a theory that what with everything going on in the world, we just got a bit of a brush off  

I'm not so sure. So I thought I'd ask here...

Any thoughts?

Thanks.

Go back and ask which 'required eligibility criteria' you failed to meet, why this didn't screen you out at the pre-eligibility stage and what actions you can take to ensure you meet these criteria next time you apply. That does two things: makes it clear you are expecting a constructive response (although be reasonable about the timeframe, given the current state of the world), and that you are keen to apply again (even if you're not, it should prod them into giving you some helpful info).

Sound advice, thank you!

Certainly the only way you are likely to find out...not sure what the point is of all the discussion about what might or might not be the case. It can only be speculation.