"We'd love to employ you, but ......."

[Dauphin]

Selecting people at random would be good because then the people who were selected would be proven to be lucky, and as Napolean once said lucky Generals people are better than good Generals people.

[Provost Harrison]

I think that was David Brent's philosophy...just throw half the CVs in the bin because they are unlucky

[DrSpike]

Re: "We'd love to employ you, but ......."

Originally posted by duke o' york
I'm severely pissed off at the moment.
I've just been turned down for an excellent job on the basis that I was too serious in the interview.
I had the best test scores of anyone they've interviewed there (maybe not ever, but certainly as far back as the finance manager has been there), they said I did really well in the interview, but apparently have decided to pass on me on those ridiculous grounds.
It's a bloody interview - not a pub crawl!!!! I'd be worried if someone wasn't serious enough. Plus, I thought that the interview was fine, and we shared a few jokes that they have possibly blanked from their memories.

So, polytubbies, in a bid to relieve my gloom, what are the most outrageous reasons you have been refused a job for?

Sorry to hear that Duke.

I think it's important not to put too much emphasis on one application. I've been on panels interviewing for jobs and there are always good people who don't get offered jobs (along with dreadful ones too ), for various reasons.

I'm actually surprised they gave you a reason. We always make some bland comment.

Still, you can focus on their encouraging feedback, and just keep plugging away. The next interviewer might be a big Michael York fan.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


I've applied for similar jobs.

It's just that I don't consider a part time document processor job to be a career.

"Document processor" is the job, "printing" or "writing" or "finance" or "law" is the career.

A "career" is the path you take to achieve the lifestyle that you want to work for, with most careers following one of two priorities (set by you):

1. To stay within the same skill-set.
2. To stay within the same industry.

You might not want to be a "Document Processor" (what is that, anyway?), but if it helps you improve your chosen skill set or get experienced (even noticed, possibly) in the industry, it isn't a job to be sneezed at.

However, if it's something that you don't like doing in a field/industry that you couldn't give a tin-shiite about, keep looking.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by JohnT
You might not want to be a "Document Processor" (what is that, anyway?),

Sorting, scanning and boxing documents. Piles and piles of them.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Precisely my attitude as well.

Then you see my point. If I have to choose between someone like you who and someone whom I can see really wants the job and will stick with it for a long time, I'll go with the latter. The job doesn't require much in the way of skills, so I won't care if you're smarter, a computer whiz, have mad skills, etc. I don't want to have to replace you in 3 months when you get bored with the job, or find another one that's more in line with your career path, or you realize the hours are impossible for you, etc.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Dauphin
Selecting people at random would be good because then the people who were selected would be proven to be lucky, and as Napolean once said lucky Generals people are better than good Generals people.

That really depends on the job you are filling. The one's selected might just be the unlucky ones...

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
I think that was David Brent's philosophy...just throw half the CVs in the bin because they are unlucky

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Japher
I have been in the job market for 6 years now, and I have been with 2 companies. The first company told me that after 2 years I would be elgible for promotion. After 20 months of working for them they raised the 2 year standard to 5 years. That ticked me off. So I applied for the promotion anyway, and was denied it for lack of tenure, stated by "you didn't want it enough". So, I left.

I have been with this company 4 years. When I started I was given a specific compensation with a specific timeline for promotions and pay raises. 2 years ago the company got bought out, and all those promises thrown to the wind. I had to fight for my promotion, and I am now looking because the job growth in this company, in this area, looks really bad. Staying for the last 2 years has been tough, but I did so because I didn't want to be labled a job hopper. Needless to say I am being very picky on the next job I take and want to stay there for at least 5 years.

You could really use this history in your next interview. Remember what Boris said about companies wanting someone who'll stick by them.

Interviewer: Why did you leave your last two jobs?

Japher: I'm looking for a career position. My first job promise me a promotion in 2 years. As I approached my second year anniversary, they extended that out to 5 years. My second company had specific timelines for promotions, which were later jettisonned when they were bought out. I'm looking for a company which offers me growth, not a dead-end job. What can you offer me?

[Agathon]

After ten years grading university papers, I'm surprised that anyone would employ 80% of people with Baccalaureate Degrees (and that includes, science, economics, and management people as well as humanities).

80% of them are illiterate, lazy and dumb.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Agathon
After ten years grading university papers, I'm surprised that anyone would employ 80% of people with Baccalaureate Degrees (and that includes, science, economics, and management people as well as humanities).

80% of them are illiterate, lazy and dumb.

the other 20% want to work at universities

[Agathon]

the other 20% want to work at universities

No. A few of the 80% want to work at universities too. That's the only explanation for the admin staff.

I'm serious. Most people go to university because they think they have to; or their parents make them; or they want some vocational training; or they're looking to meet members of the opposite sex (or the same sex, if they're left footers); or "because everyone else is doing it".

Most don't have any interest in knowledge for its own sake, which is the point of the university. Then they wonder why we make them read books and come up with their own ideas.

They should be at tech.

[MRT144]

agathon, i want to gain knowledge for the sake of knowledge but i have a hell of a time doing it, and im not that bright.

[Agathon]

OK. Then you're the sort of person I put in extra time for.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Agathon

the other 20% want to work at universities

No. A few of the 80% want to work at universities too. That's the only explanation for the admin staff.

I'm serious. Most people go to university because they think they have to; or their parents make them; or they want some vocational training; or they're looking to meet members of the opposite sex (or the same sex, if they're left footers); or "because everyone else is doing it".

Most don't have any interest in knowledge for its own sake, which is the point of the university. Then they wonder why we make them read books and come up with their own ideas.

They should be at tech.

What would you say about people that get Masters Degrees? Just curious.