Employment gaps shouldn't matter should they?

donnajunkie

AW618 said:

Planet_Switzerland said:

AW618 said:

Planet_Switzerland said:

AW618 said:

Planet_Switzerland said:

AW618 said:

Planet_Switzerland said:

AW618 said:

Planet_Switzerland said:

AW618 said:

Planet_Switzerland said:

AW618 said:

Planet_Switzerland said:

AW618 said:

Planet_Switzerland said:

AW618 said:

donnajunkie said:

Smodlet said:

I am no authority but I have heard it is expensive to advertise vacancies and to recruit candidates ergo, it does not make much sense to "set people up to fail" at interviews when the purpose is to find someone to do a job, not to go on a power trip; I am not saying this never happens.

I suspect that its just an unfair method of making it easy to pick. They could have 50 all perfectly acceptable so how do they decide? Answer? They make the interview process tougher.

You have just stated what is obviously the best way to find the best candidate as though it is some evil plan.
How on earth is it unfair to choose the best people?  They don't have to give everyone who could possibly do the job an equal chance, that would be insane.  Even if they get it wrong, and nothing you have said really indicates that anyone is, they are trying to cut down the candidates to find the best, not arbitrarily exclude people.  What would be their motivation in doing that rather than, as I have already said, just binning 30 of the 50 CVs?

It isn't the best way to find the best candidate though. Maybe it's a good way if it's for a sales job or something similar where it's about your ability to talk the talk.

Personally speaking, I have worked in various jobs for over 20 years now and have been considered a good worker in the vast majority of them both in terms of ability to do the job and work ethic. I have received awards for my work, I was acknowledged by the MD in my last job for the great work I did on the first project I worked on there, I was employee of the month twice in a 6 month maternity cover job, I was offered a permanent job after 2 days in a 2 week temporary job because they'd never known anyone to pick up the job so quickly. 

My interview record on the other hand is abysmal. I've now had 30 failed interviews in the last 2.5 years, got feedback from the latest one today.

I've only had one job where they would probably say I was rubbish. The funny thing about that particular job was that I was offered the job there and then at the interview such was the impression I made.

I know the obvious thing to do is try and get better at interviews but that's easier said than done. But even if I do somehow manage to get better at interviews, it won't mean I'd be any better at my job.

It is usually the way to find the best candidate.  However many times you repeat your personal anecdotes they remain your personal anecdotes, and even if you are as good as you think you are and it really is just office poltics that your current employers don't trust you do the things you think you can do,  someone that good who is awful at interviews is rare enough that they don't care if they miss out on you.

I don't think I am a rare case. When you need your car fixing, you don't ring up mechanics and say "Tell me about a time when you had a disagreement with a colleague and what steps did you take to resolve it?" because you know their ability to answer that question has no bearing on their ability to fix your car. If that was the criteria people did use when picking a mechanic then people who are great at answering those questions but know nothing about cars will start opening garages and do a shoddy job of fixing peoples cars.

No, you don't.  You know why?  Because you only have to deal with them once for a short period.
If you want to employ a mechanic, though, finding out whether he is likely to turn your workplace into a seething pit of resentment and conflict is a good idea, as it will clearly interfere with the ability of your business to fix cars.
I mean, surely you can see that, can't you?

I don't think there are that many people out there who will turn your workplace into a seething put of resentment and conflict. I do however think those people tend to be ones who have no problem getting through interviews. 

Look, I get that an employer needs to meet a candidate before giving them the job and that they want to get an idea of whether they can do the job and whether they'll get along with others. In reality your typical job interview questions don't tell you either of those, they just tell you whether someones good at interviews or not. I've been the other side of the fence myself, it told me nothing about what the candidate would be like at their job.

You keep saying this, no matter how many times it is explained to you that it tells you far more than that.  Why are you so convinced that being able to think and adapt or prepare are no use in any job?  

Let's turn it round,  in what way are you "bad at interviews"?  Tell me why and I will try and explain why that makes you a  less desirable employee.

It may have it's uses, but it says nothing about their ability to do the job or even what they're like as a person. It may show they prepare, but I'm sure the people who give a weak answer have also prepared too.

I'd say 30 failed interviews in the last 2 years is evident enough that I'm bad at interviews. Last weeks interview said that I didn't give solid enough examples. Other interviews have been along the lines of not the right type of experience or better candidates generally speaking. Annoyingly some have implied I don't have experience that I do have, others are along the lines of you drive a red car but this job involves driving a blue car.

There have been other interviews where I've messed up on a presentation or a test. In my job I've presented to the management board, at conferences and company wide presentations, but I've never found any of them as intimidating as presenting at an interview. The way things have gone in recent years in my job together with the number of rejections I've had has made it worse. That's why I'm messing up the tests too, the last one I did is something I've done many times before.

So at the very least, you are poor under pressure.  Why not hire someone who is as good as you generally but better under pressure?  How can the company lose from that?
Incidentally, if they say you didn't have experience that you do have, they are probably covering up the fact that they didn't want you for some more personal reason which is something they are never going to say directly.  There is absolutely no advantage to them in doing so.

It depends what sort of pressure, if I'm put under pressure in the job itself I'm fine. If they have a personal reason for not hiring me why wouldn't they say something like not a cultural fit? Not disagreeing, just seems an odd reason to give if it's personal when there are other legitimate reasons you could give.

Because "We thought he was dull as a brush" or "I just didn't like looking at him"  or "he bored me rigid" are not  things anyone is going to say.

None of these are things that would make me bad at my job. It's a notoriously boring profession so being boring would show you're suitable for it and I'm not a model so they way I look shouldn't matter either.

Firstly, for the one hundred and seventieth time, it's not just about "being able to do the job".
Secondly, the way you look shouldn't matter, but of course, it does.  This is absolutely nothing to do with the original question, of course, but comes from your tangent about the feedback you are getting,  It is a matter of fact that people considered to be fat, or short, or unattractive are far less likely to be offered a position than somebody tall, slim or attractive.  None of those people will ever be given that as the reason.  They will be given some made up reason that doesn't make the company look bad.  When receiving feedback that doesn't make sense your automatic assumption should be that whatever their reason really was, it is one they don't want to say.

That really proves the point about interviews. There is absolutely no reason why an attractive person who does my occupation would make a better employee. 

That has nothing to do with interviews.

It has everything to do with interviews. That's where your ability to do the job and work ethic count for nothing because you're too fat to be offered the job.

The discussion is about the kinds of questions that are asked at interviews.  If you now want to argue that there should be no face to face contact between employer and potential employee at all, that is an entirely different discussion.  Is that your contention?  It is fairly radical.

I think its about whats fair and reasonable and what isnt.

AW618

donnajunkie said:

AW618 said:

Planet_Switzerland said:

AW618 said:

Planet_Switzerland said:

AW618 said:

Planet_Switzerland said:

AW618 said:

Planet_Switzerland said:

AW618 said:

Planet_Switzerland said:

AW618 said:

Planet_Switzerland said:

AW618 said:

Planet_Switzerland said:

AW618 said:

Planet_Switzerland said:

AW618 said:

donnajunkie said:

Smodlet said:

I am no authority but I have heard it is expensive to advertise vacancies and to recruit candidates ergo, it does not make much sense to "set people up to fail" at interviews when the purpose is to find someone to do a job, not to go on a power trip; I am not saying this never happens.

I suspect that its just an unfair method of making it easy to pick. They could have 50 all perfectly acceptable so how do they decide? Answer? They make the interview process tougher.

You have just stated what is obviously the best way to find the best candidate as though it is some evil plan.
How on earth is it unfair to choose the best people?  They don't have to give everyone who could possibly do the job an equal chance, that would be insane.  Even if they get it wrong, and nothing you have said really indicates that anyone is, they are trying to cut down the candidates to find the best, not arbitrarily exclude people.  What would be their motivation in doing that rather than, as I have already said, just binning 30 of the 50 CVs?

It isn't the best way to find the best candidate though. Maybe it's a good way if it's for a sales job or something similar where it's about your ability to talk the talk.

Personally speaking, I have worked in various jobs for over 20 years now and have been considered a good worker in the vast majority of them both in terms of ability to do the job and work ethic. I have received awards for my work, I was acknowledged by the MD in my last job for the great work I did on the first project I worked on there, I was employee of the month twice in a 6 month maternity cover job, I was offered a permanent job after 2 days in a 2 week temporary job because they'd never known anyone to pick up the job so quickly. 

My interview record on the other hand is abysmal. I've now had 30 failed interviews in the last 2.5 years, got feedback from the latest one today.

I've only had one job where they would probably say I was rubbish. The funny thing about that particular job was that I was offered the job there and then at the interview such was the impression I made.

I know the obvious thing to do is try and get better at interviews but that's easier said than done. But even if I do somehow manage to get better at interviews, it won't mean I'd be any better at my job.

It is usually the way to find the best candidate.  However many times you repeat your personal anecdotes they remain your personal anecdotes, and even if you are as good as you think you are and it really is just office poltics that your current employers don't trust you do the things you think you can do,  someone that good who is awful at interviews is rare enough that they don't care if they miss out on you.

I don't think I am a rare case. When you need your car fixing, you don't ring up mechanics and say "Tell me about a time when you had a disagreement with a colleague and what steps did you take to resolve it?" because you know their ability to answer that question has no bearing on their ability to fix your car. If that was the criteria people did use when picking a mechanic then people who are great at answering those questions but know nothing about cars will start opening garages and do a shoddy job of fixing peoples cars.

No, you don't.  You know why?  Because you only have to deal with them once for a short period.
If you want to employ a mechanic, though, finding out whether he is likely to turn your workplace into a seething pit of resentment and conflict is a good idea, as it will clearly interfere with the ability of your business to fix cars.
I mean, surely you can see that, can't you?

I don't think there are that many people out there who will turn your workplace into a seething put of resentment and conflict. I do however think those people tend to be ones who have no problem getting through interviews. 

Look, I get that an employer needs to meet a candidate before giving them the job and that they want to get an idea of whether they can do the job and whether they'll get along with others. In reality your typical job interview questions don't tell you either of those, they just tell you whether someones good at interviews or not. I've been the other side of the fence myself, it told me nothing about what the candidate would be like at their job.

You keep saying this, no matter how many times it is explained to you that it tells you far more than that.  Why are you so convinced that being able to think and adapt or prepare are no use in any job?  

Let's turn it round,  in what way are you "bad at interviews"?  Tell me why and I will try and explain why that makes you a  less desirable employee.

It may have it's uses, but it says nothing about their ability to do the job or even what they're like as a person. It may show they prepare, but I'm sure the people who give a weak answer have also prepared too.

I'd say 30 failed interviews in the last 2 years is evident enough that I'm bad at interviews. Last weeks interview said that I didn't give solid enough examples. Other interviews have been along the lines of not the right type of experience or better candidates generally speaking. Annoyingly some have implied I don't have experience that I do have, others are along the lines of you drive a red car but this job involves driving a blue car.

There have been other interviews where I've messed up on a presentation or a test. In my job I've presented to the management board, at conferences and company wide presentations, but I've never found any of them as intimidating as presenting at an interview. The way things have gone in recent years in my job together with the number of rejections I've had has made it worse. That's why I'm messing up the tests too, the last one I did is something I've done many times before.

So at the very least, you are poor under pressure.  Why not hire someone who is as good as you generally but better under pressure?  How can the company lose from that?
Incidentally, if they say you didn't have experience that you do have, they are probably covering up the fact that they didn't want you for some more personal reason which is something they are never going to say directly.  There is absolutely no advantage to them in doing so.

It depends what sort of pressure, if I'm put under pressure in the job itself I'm fine. If they have a personal reason for not hiring me why wouldn't they say something like not a cultural fit? Not disagreeing, just seems an odd reason to give if it's personal when there are other legitimate reasons you could give.

Because "We thought he was dull as a brush" or "I just didn't like looking at him"  or "he bored me rigid" are not  things anyone is going to say.

None of these are things that would make me bad at my job. It's a notoriously boring profession so being boring would show you're suitable for it and I'm not a model so they way I look shouldn't matter either.

Firstly, for the one hundred and seventieth time, it's not just about "being able to do the job".
Secondly, the way you look shouldn't matter, but of course, it does.  This is absolutely nothing to do with the original question, of course, but comes from your tangent about the feedback you are getting,  It is a matter of fact that people considered to be fat, or short, or unattractive are far less likely to be offered a position than somebody tall, slim or attractive.  None of those people will ever be given that as the reason.  They will be given some made up reason that doesn't make the company look bad.  When receiving feedback that doesn't make sense your automatic assumption should be that whatever their reason really was, it is one they don't want to say.

That really proves the point about interviews. There is absolutely no reason why an attractive person who does my occupation would make a better employee. 

That has nothing to do with interviews.

It has everything to do with interviews. That's where your ability to do the job and work ethic count for nothing because you're too fat to be offered the job.

The discussion is about the kinds of questions that are asked at interviews.  If you now want to argue that there should be no face to face contact between employer and potential employee at all, that is an entirely different discussion.  Is that your contention?  It is fairly radical.

I think its about whats fair and reasonable and what isnt.

And how on earth does that differ in any materially important way from what I said?  

Smodlet

The fact someone applies for a job may mean they want a job; it could also mean they do not want their benefits to stop because they did not apply for jobs they were told to apply for.

Unfortunately, those who change jobs frequently are seen as a bad bet by employers; why invest in training someone who has shown a disinclination to remain in a job?

AW618

Planet_Switzerland said:

AW618 said:

donnajunkie said:

AW618 said:

Planet_Switzerland said:

AW618 said:

Planet_Switzerland said:

AW618 said:

Planet_Switzerland said:

AW618 said:

Planet_Switzerland said:

AW618 said:

Planet_Switzerland said:

AW618 said:

Planet_Switzerland said:

AW618 said:

Planet_Switzerland said:

AW618 said:

Planet_Switzerland said:

AW618 said:

donnajunkie said:

Smodlet said:

I am no authority but I have heard it is expensive to advertise vacancies and to recruit candidates ergo, it does not make much sense to "set people up to fail" at interviews when the purpose is to find someone to do a job, not to go on a power trip; I am not saying this never happens.

I suspect that its just an unfair method of making it easy to pick. They could have 50 all perfectly acceptable so how do they decide? Answer? They make the interview process tougher.

You have just stated what is obviously the best way to find the best candidate as though it is some evil plan.
How on earth is it unfair to choose the best people?  They don't have to give everyone who could possibly do the job an equal chance, that would be insane.  Even if they get it wrong, and nothing you have said really indicates that anyone is, they are trying to cut down the candidates to find the best, not arbitrarily exclude people.  What would be their motivation in doing that rather than, as I have already said, just binning 30 of the 50 CVs?

It isn't the best way to find the best candidate though. Maybe it's a good way if it's for a sales job or something similar where it's about your ability to talk the talk.

Personally speaking, I have worked in various jobs for over 20 years now and have been considered a good worker in the vast majority of them both in terms of ability to do the job and work ethic. I have received awards for my work, I was acknowledged by the MD in my last job for the great work I did on the first project I worked on there, I was employee of the month twice in a 6 month maternity cover job, I was offered a permanent job after 2 days in a 2 week temporary job because they'd never known anyone to pick up the job so quickly. 

My interview record on the other hand is abysmal. I've now had 30 failed interviews in the last 2.5 years, got feedback from the latest one today.

I've only had one job where they would probably say I was rubbish. The funny thing about that particular job was that I was offered the job there and then at the interview such was the impression I made.

I know the obvious thing to do is try and get better at interviews but that's easier said than done. But even if I do somehow manage to get better at interviews, it won't mean I'd be any better at my job.

It is usually the way to find the best candidate.  However many times you repeat your personal anecdotes they remain your personal anecdotes, and even if you are as good as you think you are and it really is just office poltics that your current employers don't trust you do the things you think you can do,  someone that good who is awful at interviews is rare enough that they don't care if they miss out on you.

I don't think I am a rare case. When you need your car fixing, you don't ring up mechanics and say "Tell me about a time when you had a disagreement with a colleague and what steps did you take to resolve it?" because you know their ability to answer that question has no bearing on their ability to fix your car. If that was the criteria people did use when picking a mechanic then people who are great at answering those questions but know nothing about cars will start opening garages and do a shoddy job of fixing peoples cars.

No, you don't.  You know why?  Because you only have to deal with them once for a short period.
If you want to employ a mechanic, though, finding out whether he is likely to turn your workplace into a seething pit of resentment and conflict is a good idea, as it will clearly interfere with the ability of your business to fix cars.
I mean, surely you can see that, can't you?

I don't think there are that many people out there who will turn your workplace into a seething put of resentment and conflict. I do however think those people tend to be ones who have no problem getting through interviews. 

Look, I get that an employer needs to meet a candidate before giving them the job and that they want to get an idea of whether they can do the job and whether they'll get along with others. In reality your typical job interview questions don't tell you either of those, they just tell you whether someones good at interviews or not. I've been the other side of the fence myself, it told me nothing about what the candidate would be like at their job.

You keep saying this, no matter how many times it is explained to you that it tells you far more than that.  Why are you so convinced that being able to think and adapt or prepare are no use in any job?  

Let's turn it round,  in what way are you "bad at interviews"?  Tell me why and I will try and explain why that makes you a  less desirable employee.

It may have it's uses, but it says nothing about their ability to do the job or even what they're like as a person. It may show they prepare, but I'm sure the people who give a weak answer have also prepared too.

I'd say 30 failed interviews in the last 2 years is evident enough that I'm bad at interviews. Last weeks interview said that I didn't give solid enough examples. Other interviews have been along the lines of not the right type of experience or better candidates generally speaking. Annoyingly some have implied I don't have experience that I do have, others are along the lines of you drive a red car but this job involves driving a blue car.

There have been other interviews where I've messed up on a presentation or a test. In my job I've presented to the management board, at conferences and company wide presentations, but I've never found any of them as intimidating as presenting at an interview. The way things have gone in recent years in my job together with the number of rejections I've had has made it worse. That's why I'm messing up the tests too, the last one I did is something I've done many times before.

So at the very least, you are poor under pressure.  Why not hire someone who is as good as you generally but better under pressure?  How can the company lose from that?
Incidentally, if they say you didn't have experience that you do have, they are probably covering up the fact that they didn't want you for some more personal reason which is something they are never going to say directly.  There is absolutely no advantage to them in doing so.

It depends what sort of pressure, if I'm put under pressure in the job itself I'm fine. If they have a personal reason for not hiring me why wouldn't they say something like not a cultural fit? Not disagreeing, just seems an odd reason to give if it's personal when there are other legitimate reasons you could give.

Because "We thought he was dull as a brush" or "I just didn't like looking at him"  or "he bored me rigid" are not  things anyone is going to say.

None of these are things that would make me bad at my job. It's a notoriously boring profession so being boring would show you're suitable for it and I'm not a model so they way I look shouldn't matter either.

Firstly, for the one hundred and seventieth time, it's not just about "being able to do the job".
Secondly, the way you look shouldn't matter, but of course, it does.  This is absolutely nothing to do with the original question, of course, but comes from your tangent about the feedback you are getting,  It is a matter of fact that people considered to be fat, or short, or unattractive are far less likely to be offered a position than somebody tall, slim or attractive.  None of those people will ever be given that as the reason.  They will be given some made up reason that doesn't make the company look bad.  When receiving feedback that doesn't make sense your automatic assumption should be that whatever their reason really was, it is one they don't want to say.

That really proves the point about interviews. There is absolutely no reason why an attractive person who does my occupation would make a better employee. 

That has nothing to do with interviews.

It has everything to do with interviews. That's where your ability to do the job and work ethic count for nothing because you're too fat to be offered the job.

The discussion is about the kinds of questions that are asked at interviews.  If you now want to argue that there should be no face to face contact between employer and potential employee at all, that is an entirely different discussion.  Is that your contention?  It is fairly radical.

I think its about whats fair and reasonable and what isnt.

And how on earth does that differ in any materially important way from what I said?  

The fact of the matter is the reason the vast majority of us go to work is because we need the money. The reason why most jobs exist is because the company needs someone to do the work. We therefore spend 40 hours or so a week doing something wouldn't be doing otherwise in exchange for money which we use to pay our bills and spend on the things we actually enjoy doing.

If someone is currently unemployed, that doesn't make them lazy and unwilling to work and the fact they're apply would surely show they're willing to work. If someone changes jobs frequently, that doesn't always mean they'll be gone before they get up to scratch. If after a year in a job you get told you aren't getting a payrise and then you get an offer of a 10% payrise elsewhere, I'm sure most people would go elsewhere. Being in the same job for too long doesn't mean you're set in your ways and don't want to change, the fact you're applying to others jobs would imply you are willing to change.

My profession is one that most people find boring. If somebody told me that what we do is their hobby I'd think either they're making it up or they live a very sad existence. But again you don't need to be interested in your job to be good at it. David Batty had no interest in football but played for England.

I got rejected from my 31st interview in the last 2 years today. After 2 interviews, 2 tests and a presentation they said I lacked knowledge in a specific area, but if what you say is true then it's probably because they didn't like my haircut.

Why are you saying all this to me?  Most of it has no relevance to anything I have said at all, and I honestly don't know why you think I disagree with it.  Generally, I don't.  What do you think I have said that would contradict it?
I make an exception for the part in bold, which is clearly referring to something I have actually said.  What I said, and what I stand by, is that if you are given feedback after an interview that makes no sense, it is usually because they don't want to tell you the real reason.  This is a simple point which you can feel free to agree or disagree with as you like.

donnajunkie

Smodlet said:

The fact someone applies for a job may mean they want a job; it could also mean they do not want their benefits to stop because they did not apply for jobs they were told to apply for.

This is a big fault of the benefit system.

Smodlet

That depends on your point of view.

donnajunkie

Smodlet said:

That depends on your point of view.

Bossing people about does not help them and it does not help employers. And its all because a minority are work shy. all that is bad with the system exists because of people getting themselves worked up about a minority. As a result everyone suffers and a lot of money gets wasted. We end up with over the top reactions being built into the rules. for example the 35 hour requirement. That is excessive. 

AW618

donnajunkie said:

Smodlet said:

That depends on your point of view.

Bossing people about does not help them and it does not help employers. 

"Hello.  Is that the Army?  Yeah, you've been doing it wrong....."

AW618

Planet_Switzerland said:

AW618 said:

Planet_Switzerland said:

AW618 said:

donnajunkie said:

AW618 said:

Planet_Switzerland said:

AW618 said:

Planet_Switzerland said:

AW618 said:

Planet_Switzerland said:

AW618 said:

Planet_Switzerland said:

AW618 said:

Planet_Switzerland said:

AW618 said:

Planet_Switzerland said:

AW618 said:

Planet_Switzerland said:

AW618 said:

Planet_Switzerland said:

AW618 said:

donnajunkie said:

Smodlet said:

I am no authority but I have heard it is expensive to advertise vacancies and to recruit candidates ergo, it does not make much sense to "set people up to fail" at interviews when the purpose is to find someone to do a job, not to go on a power trip; I am not saying this never happens.

I suspect that its just an unfair method of making it easy to pick. They could have 50 all perfectly acceptable so how do they decide? Answer? They make the interview process tougher.

You have just stated what is obviously the best way to find the best candidate as though it is some evil plan.
How on earth is it unfair to choose the best people?  They don't have to give everyone who could possibly do the job an equal chance, that would be insane.  Even if they get it wrong, and nothing you have said really indicates that anyone is, they are trying to cut down the candidates to find the best, not arbitrarily exclude people.  What would be their motivation in doing that rather than, as I have already said, just binning 30 of the 50 CVs?

It isn't the best way to find the best candidate though. Maybe it's a good way if it's for a sales job or something similar where it's about your ability to talk the talk.

Personally speaking, I have worked in various jobs for over 20 years now and have been considered a good worker in the vast majority of them both in terms of ability to do the job and work ethic. I have received awards for my work, I was acknowledged by the MD in my last job for the great work I did on the first project I worked on there, I was employee of the month twice in a 6 month maternity cover job, I was offered a permanent job after 2 days in a 2 week temporary job because they'd never known anyone to pick up the job so quickly. 

My interview record on the other hand is abysmal. I've now had 30 failed interviews in the last 2.5 years, got feedback from the latest one today.

I've only had one job where they would probably say I was rubbish. The funny thing about that particular job was that I was offered the job there and then at the interview such was the impression I made.

I know the obvious thing to do is try and get better at interviews but that's easier said than done. But even if I do somehow manage to get better at interviews, it won't mean I'd be any better at my job.

It is usually the way to find the best candidate.  However many times you repeat your personal anecdotes they remain your personal anecdotes, and even if you are as good as you think you are and it really is just office poltics that your current employers don't trust you do the things you think you can do,  someone that good who is awful at interviews is rare enough that they don't care if they miss out on you.

I don't think I am a rare case. When you need your car fixing, you don't ring up mechanics and say "Tell me about a time when you had a disagreement with a colleague and what steps did you take to resolve it?" because you know their ability to answer that question has no bearing on their ability to fix your car. If that was the criteria people did use when picking a mechanic then people who are great at answering those questions but know nothing about cars will start opening garages and do a shoddy job of fixing peoples cars.

No, you don't.  You know why?  Because you only have to deal with them once for a short period.
If you want to employ a mechanic, though, finding out whether he is likely to turn your workplace into a seething pit of resentment and conflict is a good idea, as it will clearly interfere with the ability of your business to fix cars.
I mean, surely you can see that, can't you?

I don't think there are that many people out there who will turn your workplace into a seething put of resentment and conflict. I do however think those people tend to be ones who have no problem getting through interviews. 

Look, I get that an employer needs to meet a candidate before giving them the job and that they want to get an idea of whether they can do the job and whether they'll get along with others. In reality your typical job interview questions don't tell you either of those, they just tell you whether someones good at interviews or not. I've been the other side of the fence myself, it told me nothing about what the candidate would be like at their job.

You keep saying this, no matter how many times it is explained to you that it tells you far more than that.  Why are you so convinced that being able to think and adapt or prepare are no use in any job?  

Let's turn it round,  in what way are you "bad at interviews"?  Tell me why and I will try and explain why that makes you a  less desirable employee.

It may have it's uses, but it says nothing about their ability to do the job or even what they're like as a person. It may show they prepare, but I'm sure the people who give a weak answer have also prepared too.

I'd say 30 failed interviews in the last 2 years is evident enough that I'm bad at interviews. Last weeks interview said that I didn't give solid enough examples. Other interviews have been along the lines of not the right type of experience or better candidates generally speaking. Annoyingly some have implied I don't have experience that I do have, others are along the lines of you drive a red car but this job involves driving a blue car.

There have been other interviews where I've messed up on a presentation or a test. In my job I've presented to the management board, at conferences and company wide presentations, but I've never found any of them as intimidating as presenting at an interview. The way things have gone in recent years in my job together with the number of rejections I've had has made it worse. That's why I'm messing up the tests too, the last one I did is something I've done many times before.

So at the very least, you are poor under pressure.  Why not hire someone who is as good as you generally but better under pressure?  How can the company lose from that?
Incidentally, if they say you didn't have experience that you do have, they are probably covering up the fact that they didn't want you for some more personal reason which is something they are never going to say directly.  There is absolutely no advantage to them in doing so.

It depends what sort of pressure, if I'm put under pressure in the job itself I'm fine. If they have a personal reason for not hiring me why wouldn't they say something like not a cultural fit? Not disagreeing, just seems an odd reason to give if it's personal when there are other legitimate reasons you could give.

Because "We thought he was dull as a brush" or "I just didn't like looking at him"  or "he bored me rigid" are not  things anyone is going to say.

None of these are things that would make me bad at my job. It's a notoriously boring profession so being boring would show you're suitable for it and I'm not a model so they way I look shouldn't matter either.

Firstly, for the one hundred and seventieth time, it's not just about "being able to do the job".
Secondly, the way you look shouldn't matter, but of course, it does.  This is absolutely nothing to do with the original question, of course, but comes from your tangent about the feedback you are getting,  It is a matter of fact that people considered to be fat, or short, or unattractive are far less likely to be offered a position than somebody tall, slim or attractive.  None of those people will ever be given that as the reason.  They will be given some made up reason that doesn't make the company look bad.  When receiving feedback that doesn't make sense your automatic assumption should be that whatever their reason really was, it is one they don't want to say.

That really proves the point about interviews. There is absolutely no reason why an attractive person who does my occupation would make a better employee. 

That has nothing to do with interviews.

It has everything to do with interviews. That's where your ability to do the job and work ethic count for nothing because you're too fat to be offered the job.

The discussion is about the kinds of questions that are asked at interviews.  If you now want to argue that there should be no face to face contact between employer and potential employee at all, that is an entirely different discussion.  Is that your contention?  It is fairly radical.

I think its about whats fair and reasonable and what isnt.

And how on earth does that differ in any materially important way from what I said?  

The fact of the matter is the reason the vast majority of us go to work is because we need the money. The reason why most jobs exist is because the company needs someone to do the work. We therefore spend 40 hours or so a week doing something wouldn't be doing otherwise in exchange for money which we use to pay our bills and spend on the things we actually enjoy doing.

If someone is currently unemployed, that doesn't make them lazy and unwilling to work and the fact they're apply would surely show they're willing to work. If someone changes jobs frequently, that doesn't always mean they'll be gone before they get up to scratch. If after a year in a job you get told you aren't getting a payrise and then you get an offer of a 10% payrise elsewhere, I'm sure most people would go elsewhere. Being in the same job for too long doesn't mean you're set in your ways and don't want to change, the fact you're applying to others jobs would imply you are willing to change.

My profession is one that most people find boring. If somebody told me that what we do is their hobby I'd think either they're making it up or they live a very sad existence. But again you don't need to be interested in your job to be good at it. David Batty had no interest in football but played for England.

I got rejected from my 31st interview in the last 2 years today. After 2 interviews, 2 tests and a presentation they said I lacked knowledge in a specific area, but if what you say is true then it's probably because they didn't like my haircut.

Why are you saying all this to me?  Most of it has no relevance to anything I have said at all, and I honestly don't know why you think I disagree with it.  Generally, I don't.  What do you think I have said that would contradict it?
I make an exception for the part in bold, which is clearly referring to something I have actually said.  What I said, and what I stand by, is that if you are given feedback after an interview that makes no sense, it is usually because they don't want to tell you the real reason.  This is a simple point which you can feel free to agree or disagree with as you like.

That interviews do tell who the best candidate is, that I'm a rare case of being good at my job but bad at interviews.

If you do end up not getting a job because you don't have enough knowledge of something, when in reality they don't like the look of you, what exactly are you supposed to do?

You are persisting in clutching at this straw man you have built.  Nobody has said the reason you (or anyone) can't get a job is the way you look.    All I have said is that if you get feedback that doesn't make sense, then it probably means the real reason is something they didn't want to say, like, for example, they didn't like the way you look.
Is that clear to you now? 
Honestly, are you like this in interviews?  It would explain a lot.

AW618

I don't know what you are supposed to do.  Why on earth assume I would?  What have I said that has given you any indication I claim to know that?
Are you sure you are talking to the right person?  You keep on saying things as though you are contradicting me when they bear no relation whatsoever to any points I have made.  When have I ever said you don't go to an interview to get a job?  I am sure you do.