Things I've learned as a recent grad

[Corpuscule]

Which is why its very hard for physics phds to get many jobs at engineering companies, especially in a crowded market. Its easier to hire the normal candidate over the outlier candidate.

Not only. You may notice that you are competing vs engineers with experience perfectly matching the job requirements. As a physicist you are likely to only have somewhat relevant or related experience. That would be an advantage vs totally unexperienced engineers, but even fresh engineering graduates these days come with several highly relevant internships under their belts.

 

[Lavabug]

I concur with most of what has been said. However, what if it comes down to answering the question "why do you want this job"? Either in an interview or a cover letter? I mean this outside the context of academia, but since we're mixing subjects here: in an academic scenario: a graduate school application when stating research interests?

Does it really pay off to be sincere in answering this question? Not everyone is fortunate enough to get to apply solely to jobs they would like, ie: not have to overtly lie about a subject like this. IME being frank about wanting to get your living expensive paid is a surefire way of not getting hired, every hiring manager even at simple retail jobs want someone who *"likes"* their job.

 

[kinkmode]

You do have to play the game to a certain amount. I wouldn't call that lying. Yes, if you go into an interview, you should be enthusiastic about it and act like you want the job. While I think it's a bit silly in this day and age for employers to expect entry level interviewees to pretend that they are only interested in THEIR specific opening, that's what you've got to do. And it's relatively easy to do that without lying. Be professional and polite, don't talk about previous negative work experiences, don't talk about your other job options/desires. Focus on the one at hand. Find the positive things to talk about with respect to the potential job. If it's a cool work environment, talk about that. If it involves working with a lot of people, talk about that.

On the other hand, I would call the thing that started this whole lying bit a lie, and a stupid one at that.

 

[TMFKAN64]

On the other hand, I would call the thing that started this whole lying bit a lie, and a stupid one at that.

I'd agree. To some extent, everyone tries to make molehills into mountains on their resume and sell what they've done to interviewers. That's very different than saying white is black.

 

[analogdesign]

I'd agree. To some extent, everyone tries to make molehills into mountains on their resume and sell what they've done to interviewers. That's very different than saying white is black.

True. Investigating the amount of inflation is one of the primary goals of a good interview.

 

[Turion]

Lying is extremely difficult.

My advice is that if you're going to do it, you better get every single tiny detail down. For example: if you say that you worked as a computer technician, then you better have gotten 100% on that Comptia A+ technician certification or else they'll immediately know you're lying.

Most people lying on their resume get caught because they don't have sufficient knowledge.

 

[D H]

Thats justification for why the mistake in perception doesn't matter. It is not reasoning for why the interviewer was not making a mistake in perception in that scenario.

How do you know a mistake was made? All we have is a brief second-hand description of why a job interview didn't go well, and it's a one-sided description at that. The interview was with Microsoft, and a big company like that is smart enough to know *not* to say anything remotely disparaging to a rejected candidate. "After further review we don't have an opening for you now" is about all you'll get.

We don't know why this person was rejected. You are assuming it was because of a mistake. I can think of lots of ways that the rejection was not a mistake. Like any big company, Microsoft is bound to have a few pockets of excellence and a lot of pockets of mundaneness. Suppose he interviewed with one of those groups that specialize in mundane work. They may well have found that he did do exactly what he claimed -- and rejected him precisely because of that. A superstar is not a good fit in a group that does not do superstar-class work.

 

[Locrian]

However, what if it comes down to answering the question "why do you want this job"? Either in an interview or a cover letter?
Does it really pay off to be sincere in answering this question? Not everyone is fortunate enough to get to apply solely to jobs they would like, ie: not have to overtly lie about a subject like this. IME being frank about wanting to get your living expensive paid is a surefire way of not getting hired, every hiring manager even at simple retail jobs want someone who *"likes"* their job.

I admit it has been a while since I worked retail, but I’d bet you real money I could get a job at a retail store and be 100% honest in the process. This is how I imagine the conversation going:

ER: So why do you want this job?
Me: I like to work. I’m looking to make some money in my spare time. I’m going to do an excellent job here and I believe this will work out very well for us both.
ER: But why do you want to work at this particular position?
Me: Well, [insert company name] has a good reputation. I believe this is a company that rewards responsible, hard workers like myself.
ER: Are you considering a career in [X]?
Me: I don’t know at this time whether this will turn into a career. However, I’m going to excel in the position that I’m in, and I’ll make it my goal to ensure you are glad you hired me.

Of course, I can say all that because it’s true. And you can bet they’d hire me, even though I straight up told them I was doing it for the money. Of course you’re also there for the money, so be up front about what they’re going to get for it.

One thing I want to stress is that often job-seekers believe employers want extensive background information and a deep analysis of their history and motivations. They usually don’t. They want to know you’ll fill the gap they’ve got, or solve the problem they have.

So firstly, decide whether you can solve whatever problem they have, because they have one or they wouldn’t be looking to pay someone. Secondly, tell them you’re going to do that, repeatedly. Wherever the conversation goes, always come back to what you’re going to do for them. And, if you can, how you’re going to do it. I’ve been thrilled with how well that works.

 

[Locrian]

While I like the job I have, I began a job search about a month and a half ago. My principle for interviews has been as follows:

• Research the company. You don’t need to know everything, but if you can find their financial report, it often has very useful summaries and may tell you something about how the company is structured that helps in the interview.
  
• Listen to them describe themselves and the position. They don’t always give you this information up front, but if they do, be thinking of how you’re going to do that work. When they stop talking, take a turn and use language that puts you there (“So I am going to do W and meanwhile I’ll be working on X. That’s great because I already know how to Y and am confident I can learn Z very quickly.”)
  
• Say nothing negative. 100% positive is the rule. Learn to use language that transfers positively while honestly describing the situation.
  
• Stay on message. You’re going to do good work for them. You’re excited about it.
  
• Listen carefully and take good notes.
  
• If it’s on-site, smile and relax.

Pretty basic stuff, but I thought I’d throw it out there.

Being honest has been a given, btw.

 

[Choppy]

I concur with most of what has been said. However, what if it comes down to answering the question "why do you want this job"? Either in an interview or a cover letter? I mean this outside the context of academia, but since we're mixing subjects here: in an academic scenario: a graduate school application when stating research interests?

Does it really pay off to be sincere in answering this question? Not everyone is fortunate enough to get to apply solely to jobs they would like, ie: not have to overtly lie about a subject like this. IME being frank about wanting to get your living expensive paid is a surefire way of not getting hired, every hiring manager even at simple retail jobs want someone who *"likes"* their job.

Just to add to what Locrian has said, I think there may be this perception that you have to "lie" to this question - or at least exaggerate the truth, but I don't really think that's the case.

Of course there are lots of cases where you're looking for the best job that you can get out of what's available... and what's available at a given time may be crap. Stating that you think the job is going to be crap is obviously not a recommended course of action, but I would argue that wouldn't be telling the whole truth in that case.

1. You made the decision to apply.
2. You made the decision to attend the interview.
3. You have decided you would work that job if it were offered to you.

So on some level, you're agreeing to that position as an exchange for your time and effort. And though you may not think highly of the position or the company, you do believe it's worth your time.

A manager at McDonald's is going to be well aware that the applicants don't see the fry station as a permanent career. But he or she will want to know whether you can see the position as an opportunity and make the best of it and work diligently as you do.

 

[jesse73]

How do you know a mistake was made? All we have is a brief second-hand description of why a job interview didn't go well, and it's a one-sided description at that. The interview was with Microsoft, and a big company like that is smart enough to know *not* to say anything remotely disparaging to a rejected candidate. "After further review we don't have an opening for you now" is about all you'll get.

We don't know why this person was rejected. You are assuming it was because of a mistake. I can think of lots of ways that the rejection was not a mistake. Like any big company, Microsoft is bound to have a few pockets of excellence and a lot of pockets of mundaneness. Suppose he interviewed with one of those groups that specialize in mundane work. They may well have found that he did do exactly what he claimed -- and rejected him precisely because of that. A superstar is not a good fit in a group that does not do superstar-class work.

Im confused are you and analogdesign the same person or know this same individual because I was referring to analogdesigns comment. In analogsdesign comment he said he knew the guy actually did all the work he was describing.

 

[Lavabug]

I admit it has been a while since I worked retail, but I’d bet you real money I could get a job at a retail store and be 100% honest in the process. This is how I imagine the conversation going:

ER: So why do you want this job?
Me: I like to work. I’m looking to make some money in my spare time. I’m going to do an excellent job here and I believe this will work out very well for us both.
ER: But why do you want to work at this particular position?
Me: Well, [insert company name] has a good reputation. I believe this is a company that rewards responsible, hard workers like myself.
ER: Are you considering a career in [X]?
Me: I don’t know at this time whether this will turn into a career. However, I’m going to excel in the position that I’m in, and I’ll make it my goal to ensure you are glad you hired me.

Of course, I can say all that because it’s true. And you can bet they’d hire me, even though I straight up told them I was doing it for the money. Of course you’re also there for the money, so be up front about what they’re going to get for it.

That sounds good, sounds like you know how to sell yourself very easily, assuming that's the level of confidence a retail manager wants to hear. But doesn't it sound a little too rehearsed? I'm assuming that's a bad thing?

I personally would have a lot of trouble responding like that while keeping a straight face, regardless of the "level" of the job, but I'm generally not that confident in the least. Hasn't stopped me from getting the few retail jobs I've actually been called to an interview for though. Then again the market back then may have been better, and my competitors for the position generally looked like ex-convicts, so it may not have had anything to do with me.

 

[trickslapper]

That sounds good, sounds like you know how to sell yourself very easily, assuming that's the level of confidence a retail manager wants to hear. But doesn't it sound a little too rehearsed? I'm assuming that's a bad thing?

I personally would have a lot of trouble responding like that while keeping a straight face, regardless of the "level" of the job, but I'm generally not that confident in the least. Hasn't stopped me from getting the few retail jobs I've actually been called to an interview for though. Then again the market back then may have been better, and my competitors for the position generally looked like ex-convicts, so it may not have had anything to do with me.

I agree that it sounds too rehearsed. I think being casual is the best way to interview. You have to remember that the people who are interviewing you are still regular people with regular problems. If you can connect with them on that kind of level they would rather hire you then some brainiac who can barely keep eye contact / says what the interviewer "wants" to hear.

 

[Locrian]

I agree that it sounds too rehearsed. I think being casual is the best way to interview. You have to remember that the people who are interviewing you are still regular people with regular problems. If you can connect with them on that kind of level they would rather hire you then some brainiac who can barely keep eye contact / says what the interviewer "wants" to hear.

How could you possibly get from my post to "brainiac who can barely keep eye contact"? Was your post serious? Did I miss some sarcasm? The post Lavabug responded to absolutely included eye contact, and I was spectacularly clear that it was genuine, and not just what they wanted to hear. How could you have misread that?

Did you miss the line where I said "Of course, I can say all that because it’s true." Because then it's not just what they want to hear, it's also an honest assessment of my own motives.

Being forthright, direct, and focusing on the mutual benefits of the job is working very well. I'm sure it's not the only way, but it's one of the better ones.

As a side note, I'm in a job search right now and it's going really, really well. If I finish this process with three excellent offers, it'll be because I didn't feel the need to get six. Or more. My way isn't the only way, but I have hard evidence it works.

 

[Locrian]

But doesn't it sound a little too rehearsed? I'm assuming that's a bad thing?

It’s not necessarily a bad thing. “Rehearsed” implies unnatural, but it also implies prepared. (Remember that some of those cruddy HR interview type questions are really just testing to see if you cared enough about the position to prepare yourself!) What’s important is that what you say is true and that you can support it if they ask further questions. I admit that at about the tenth interview, it has become hard not to sound rehearsed - because I have answered the same questions so many times! However, I really don’t think it has hurt me; it may have even helped.

One of the biggest dangers in interviewing is going off the rails, which is much easier to do than it seems. Part of the problem is that you’re not having a normal discussion – they’re usually taking notes. This means that they don’t jump in when you finish your sentence. It is very common for interviewees to finish a short description of something, be greeted with silence, interpret that as an indication they should continue, andthen continue on. Maybe you’ve seen what I mean (and if not, you will). Some interviewers will even place pauses on purpose just to bait you, and some will do it in person. They want to see what level of control you have. But usually these pauses are not intentional.

Because the interviewee is trying to impress the interviewer, and because those silences can seem uncomfortable to the interviewee, it is critical that you practice giving concise, careful (and, obviously, honest) answers to questions.

Rehearsed isn’t perfect, but it’s infinitely better than rambling.

 

[trickslapper]

How could you possibly get from my post to "brainiac who can barely keep eye contact"? Was your post serious? Did I miss some sarcasm? The post Lavabug responded to absolutely included eye contact, and I was spectacularly clear that it was genuine, and not just what they wanted to hear. How could you have misread that?

Did you miss the line where I said "Of course, I can say all that because it’s true." Because then it's not just what they want to hear, it's also an honest assessment of my own motives.

Being forthright, direct, and focusing on the mutual benefits of the job is working very well. I'm sure it's not the only way, but it's one of the better ones.

As a side note, I'm in a job search right now and it's going really, really well. If I finish this process with three excellent offers, it'll be because I didn't feel the need to get six. Or more. My way isn't the only way, but I have hard evidence it works.

Relax, I meant in general that it's better to be casual than to be overly reherased, sound too smart, or say what an employer wants to hear. I wasn't talking about you in particular. Although i still think what you posted was too rehearsed but, I'm sure it didn't sound that way when you spoke those words.

 

[Lavabug]

Relax, I meant in general that it's better to be casual than to be overly reherased, sound too smart, or say what an employer wants to hear. I wasn't talking about you in particular. Although i still think what you posted was too rehearsed but, I'm sure it didn't sound that way when you spoke those words.

That's what I interpreted too.

As a physics major IME, and I'm sure many other people here can corroborate this, it takes very very little for the layman to automatically assume you have an intellectual superiority complex, which certainly doesn't do you any favors in a job hunt.

 

[D H]

But doesn't it sound a little too rehearsed? I'm assuming that's a bad thing?

Yes, there's always a danger in coming off as too slick, too rehearsed, during an interview. It makes interviewers wonder what's behind the interviewee's "interview face".

That said, Locrian's post addressed the key issue of someone looking for a job in a field rather different from the one in which a person has been educated in or has worked in. That person had better have a very good answer to the "why do you want this job" question because that question is going to come up. Interviewers pretty much expect a canned answer when they ask that question. It's a bit surprising when the interviewee stumbles on this question.

You should have an answer to that question no matter what, and to the question of why you want to work for the specific company that is interviewing you. Locrian addressed this in a later post, thoroughly research the company with which you are about to have an interview. You might find that you truly do want to work there. You might also find that you do not want to work there at all, in which case you might as well cancel the interview. (Or you can be a bit Machiavellian and make it a "practice interview." You go in with the explicit intent of getting an offer even though you know in advance that you will not accept it. Not that nice, but meh, it's good preparation for a "real" interview.)

 

[Lavabug]

You might find that you truly do want to work there. You might also find that you do not want to work there at all, in which case you might as well cancel the interview. (Or you can be a bit Machiavellian and make it a "practice interview." You go in with the explicit intent of getting an offer even though you know you will not accept it. Not that nice, but meh, it's good preparation for a "real" interview.)

There's another scenario: you may find you wouldn't want to work there, but it's the only job interview you've got in months/a year and you really need the job, ie: you're just about to miss a rent payment.

Which brings us back to the question of sincerity. It seems like in this climate, the job seeker is always at a disadvantage and will have to resort to lying in some form or another, more so if he/she is trying to get a job outside of what they were trained in (a very real and generally unavoidable thing for most physics majors).

Doing it skillfully in this scenario is the only way to get hired when the market is this bad for employees it seems, it's a buyer's market.

 

[Locrian]

My limited experience is that hard science majors can manage to come across as both arrogant and lacking confidence, which is pretty impressive if you think about it. I was def guilty of that a decade ago.

I think your worry about sounding rehearsed is way, way overblown. Youll get questions that you couldn't see coming; be properly prepared for the ones you can.

I have another interview tomorrow (final, post on-site) and I'm going to bust my butt preparing for it, including preparing answers for the questions I know are coming.

I advise you to do the same!

 

[Locrian]

When, at the on-site interview, the interviewer looks you in the eye and asks "So why do you want this position?", you need to have a brief, concise and sincere answer that's 1-2 sentences long. You need to deliver it with little thought and without breaking eye contact.

Anything less and you're a lazy, unprepared loser who doesn't deserve the job.

If you can do that on the fly, great. But you probably can't.

So get rehearsing.

 

[gmax137]

I have another interview tomorrow

Good Luck, Locrian. Let us know how it went!

 

[Locrian]

Good Luck, Locrian. Let us know how it went!

Very kind of you!

I learned something (or, maybe, relearned it), so I'll mention how things went.

This was the fourth interview with this company (counting the 5 hours on-site as one), and I expected it to be focused on defining the specific position the offer would be for, and maybe some final sales pitches from both sides. My preparations focused on these two things:

1. Why I want to work for them
2. Why I wanted to work in the positions discussed in previous interviews
3. Why they should want to hire me

This served me pretty well, but the questions were something of a surprise. I was asked a number of technical questions that I can assume were testing my knowledge of my work areas. They weren't unusual, they were just unusual at this stage.

I was also asked one left-field HR type question that was tremendously vague. In response, I doubled down on one philosophy I've had so far and gave a possibly too-honest answer. There probably wasn't a better one, though I wish I had phrased it slightly differently.

So I had an answer to all questions, but something bugged me afterwards. I felt my presence just wasn't sufficient; I wasn't alive enough on the phone. Something had gone wrong.

I realized later what it was: it was how I was sitting. I was in my car, and I was a bit scrunched up, with notes taking up lots of room.

Body language is really important on phone calls. It's easy to forget that, but your body language impacts how you sound, your choice of words, and how well you cope with stress. At this point I should beyond such a rookie mistake, but life had thrown me a curve-ball (it's hard to schedule these things and not impact work) and I hadn't responded adequately.

I don't think I blew it, but I thought I'd share so no one else misses such an important consideration.

 

[Locrian]

For those who think you should lie/mislead/inflate or otherwise fib on your resume and interviews, consider reading Chapter 3 of the book "Career Contentment" by Jeffery Garton. The chapter is entitled "Present the Authentic "You" to Potential Employers" and goes into the personal (and sometimes legal) issues created when one is not honest on their resume.

Despite the book's lackluster name, I've found the middle chapters helpful.

 

[lisab]

Very kind of you!

I learned something (or, maybe, relearned it), so I'll mention how things went.

This was the fourth interview with this company (counting the 5 hours on-site as one), and I expected it to be focused on defining the specific position the offer would be for, and maybe some final sales pitches from both sides. My preparations focused on these two things:

1. Why I want to work for them
2. Why I wanted to work in the positions discussed in previous interviews
3. Why they should want to hire me

This served me pretty well, but the questions were something of a surprise. I was asked a number of technical questions that I can assume were testing my knowledge of my work areas. They weren't unusual, they were just unusual at this stage.

I was also asked one left-field HR type question that was tremendously vague. In response, I doubled down on one philosophy I've had so far and gave a possibly too-honest answer. There probably wasn't a better one, though I wish I had phrased it slightly differently.

So I had an answer to all questions, but something bugged me afterwards. I felt my presence just wasn't sufficient; I wasn't alive enough on the phone. Something had gone wrong.

I realized later what it was: it was how I was sitting. I was in my car, and I was a bit scrunched up, with notes taking up lots of room.

Body language is really important on phone calls. It's easy to forget that, but your body language impacts how you sound, your choice of words, and how well you cope with stress. At this point I should beyond such a rookie mistake, but life had thrown me a curve-ball (it's hard to schedule these things and not impact work) and I hadn't responded adequately.

I don't think I blew it, but I thought I'd share so no one else misses such an important consideration.

Thanks, Locrian. I had two phone interviews over the last few months, and neither went well. I, too, was in my car, in a parking lot. I had notes all over my lap. It wasn't at all comfortable, and I think you're right -- it probably affected how I came across. But until I read your post I really hadn't made the connection .

 

[Locrian]

Thanks for the comment lisab, and glad I could help in a small way.

For anyone who hasn't seen it, I found Amy Cuddy's TED talk to be really great (though I was already a convert). I highly recommend watching until the end, as she addresses one of the big objections people often give to using body language.

 

[kinkmode]

Good luck with the job hunt.

Is it just me, or does anyone else find 4+ interviews, including one that was 5 hours long, a bit nuts? I have a personal theory that at some point, companies are not doing themselves any favor with such drawn out interview processes. I know hiring mistakes are expensive to fix, but having too much (possibly conflicting) data really doesn't help either.

If the ONLY reason Locrian doesn't get that job is that he was forced to do the 4th phone interview in a car while at work because unreasonable interview accommodations, I think that reflects more poorly on the company than Locrian. Also, correlation between that one factor and future performance is probably pretty low.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Good luck with the job hunt.

Is it just me, or does anyone else find 4+ interviews, including one that was 5 hours long, a bit nuts? I have a personal theory that at some point, companies are not doing themselves any favor with such drawn out interview processes. I know hiring mistakes are expensive to fix, but having too much (possibly conflicting) data really doesn't help either.

If the ONLY reason Locrian doesn't get that job is that he was forced to do the 4th phone interview in a car while at work because unreasonable interview accommodations, I think that reflects more poorly on the company than Locrian. Also, correlation between that one factor and future performance is probably pretty low.

Actually, at least in my experience, 4+ interviews is not particularly unusual. For my present job, I had 3 interviews: an initial phone screen with the HR personnel, a second phone interview with the hiring manager (who I currently report into), an on-site interview where I met with the visiting director of biostatistics plus 3 other senior managers and one fellow biostatistician (this lasted about 3 hours).

Previously, I was flown into an interview for a large pharmaceutical company where I had 1 onsite interview that lasted from 9AM-4PM (including a presentation I prepared, plus interviewing while having lunch).

One of the problems is that there are usually multiple levels of management who are involved in the hiring decision who wish to speak to the prospective candidate, and it is often very difficult due to their busy schedules and time constraints to get everyone to meet the candidate at the same time. I suspect that may have been the case with Locrian and his interviews.

 

[kinkmode]

Hey, I never said it was unusual :) Just somewhat silly. I understand 3ish interviews, if you count phone screens as interviews:

1. HR phone screening
2. 'Real' phone interview
3. In person interview, which can be an all day affair sometimes.

Other than that, I think you've reached the point of diminishing returns. Personally, I think it makes a company look bad or unprofessional, particularly if your prospective employee is doing all the interviewing around THEIR work schedule. If you can't figure out if someone is hirable after an all day in-person interview, you're doing it wrong.

If top dog manager can't find the time in his busy schedule to meet with you, maybe it's not that important for him to meet with you. Too many cooks in the kitchen and all that.

 

[D H]

You are confusing the situation, kinkmode. Locrian is interviewing at many different companies. He expects to have received multiple offers when all is said and done.

With one specific company, you can expect *at least* three interviews if all goes well: The initial phone interview, the all-day on-site interview, and one or more follow-on interviews where you and the prospective employer haggle for money, perks, and benefits, agree on a start date, address intellectual property concerns, and all that.

 

[kinkmode]

"This was the fourth interview with this company..." Sounds like one company to me. Note, I am aware that he is interviewing with multiple companies.

I know people who have had 3 or 4 onsite interviews on 3 or 4 different dates, all for the same job. Only to not get a job offer. Frankly, I don't even really count the initial HR phone call as an interview; I know they don't.

But it's not really important. I was just making a comment that I find many companies interviewing procedures to be not overly effective. No need to side track the thread any more.

 

[Jamin2112]

I know people who have had 3 or 4 onsite interviews on 3 or 4 different dates, all for the same job. Only to not get a job offer. Frankly, I don't even really count the initial HR phone call as an interview; I know they don't.

Sometimes the initial phone call is just HR trying to look busy that day. If HR needs to meet some quota of daily phone calls, they'll call up people they aren't realistically considering for the position.

Moreover, lots of listings you see on Indeed and other job boards are fake listings. With the internet, companies can post jobs cost-free, where in the old days they would've had to buy space in the local newspaper. So a lot of companies that are just trying to test the waters will post a fake job to see what types of applicants they attract in case they actually need to fill such a role in the near future. Or a position they're planning to fill internally will be posted just to make outsiders have confidence that the company is expanding. Or a company planning to fill a position with HB1 visa holders will post it so they can prove to the Labor Department that they tried to find applicants domestically.

 

[Aero51]

Sometimes the initial phone call is just HR trying to look busy that day. If HR needs to meet some quota of daily phone calls, they'll call up people they aren't realistically considering for the position.

Moreover, lots of listings you see on Indeed and other job boards are fake listings. With the internet, companies can post jobs cost-free, where in the old days they would've had to buy space in the local newspaper. So a lot of companies that are just trying to test the waters will post a fake job to see what types of applicants they attract in case they actually need to fill such a role in the near future. Or a position they're planning to fill internally will be posted just to make outsiders have confidence that the company is expanding. Or a company planning to fill a position with HB1 visa holders will post it so they can prove to the Labor Department that they tried to find applicants domestically.

This a truly remarkable fact. The companies themselves lie to their candidate pool while many of you preach about the integrity of the applicant. Now tell me, is it ok for a company to bait its candidates? If you want to talk about integrity, talk about company policy towards candidates. Absolutely contemptible that virtually all of you overlooked this fact.

Here is a great question: what happens to companies that don't act with integrity, that don't care about the employee...? Nothing. There is nobody to keep them in check, so why should a candidate play the hippocrite to their disadvantage?

And 4 interviews? What are you applying to work in a secret lab at Mount Cheyenne? They are taking advantage of you.

 

[D H]

And 4 interviews? What are you applying to work in a secret lab at Mount Cheyenne? They are taking advantage of you.

Nonsense.

Here's an easy way to count four interviews with one company.

1. You go to a trade show or job fair and go to XYZ Company's booth. You talk about job opportunities, what they do, what you do, why you would make a good candidate. If you don't go to that booth without your interview hat on you lose.
2. That initial interview went well. The company asked you to submit your resume through its on-line application process. You do that, and you get a phone interview as a result. If you don't do that phone interview without your interview hat on you lose.
3. The phone interview also went well. The company asks you to come in for a day-long formal interview. They might even pony up some cash for your expenses for this boondoggle. If you don't do this formal interview without your interview hat on you lose.
4. The formal interview also went well. All that's left is talkin' turkey. Here's the trick: This too is an interview. All the hard work in getting this far may be for nought if you don't look at it as such. You need your interview hat on for this, too, because this is also an interview.

That's four interviews, easy, for a typical technical job. Your job working in a secret lab at Cheyenne Mountain? Four is a bare start. There's the lie detector test, interviews about your family and friends, and then a lot of waiting so that people can go interview your family and friends to find the people they really want to talk to.

 

[Choppy]

Moreover, lots of listings you see on Indeed and other job boards are fake listings. With the internet, companies can post jobs cost-free, where in the old days they would've had to buy space in the local newspaper. So a lot of companies that are just trying to test the waters will post a fake job to see what types of applicants they attract in case they actually need to fill such a role in the near future. Or a position they're planning to fill internally will be posted just to make outsiders have confidence that the company is expanding. Or a company planning to fill a position with HB1 visa holders will post it so they can prove to the Labor Department that they tried to find applicants domestically.

It's also important to remember what's happened by the time a job is posted on a job board, particularly in a competative market for job-seekers:

1. Union rules and internal policies often dictate that comanies seek to hire from within. When a job becomes available the comany will look to people that already work there to fill the position - either people who can be promoted, or those looking for a lateral shift. Only after such options are exhausted will they look outside the company.

2. If the job is any good, there is likely a pool of candidates who already know about it and who have been waiting for it to become available. They have already spoken with the hiring manager, and already made sure this person has their resumes.

3. People in position to hire someone (and who care about who they are hiring) will naturally look to their own networks to fill a position. Also in this category you could most certainly include nepotism... the hiring of friends and relations... not that such practices are always legal/fair, but I think that's still a factor to account for.

4. Head hunters. For those high-paying jobs, rather than simply advertising on a job board, companies will hire people specifically to find them the candidates they are looking for.

Now, after all of that is exhausted, THEN, the company will look to people who are applying based on the advertisements. Generally speaking, even when the job is all-but offered to a candidate found through any of the above factors, jobs are still advertised. This is because they have to ensure a legal/fair competition.