Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Interview technique (or lack of...)

You might enjoy this offering from RollonFriday...

Title: YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE

Yes, you. The one I met when I interviewed you yesterday. If you don't like questions like that up front then don't put stuff like that in your fecking application form. The look of shock on your face. The sweat and blushes. All avoidable by THINKING BEFORE TYPING.

And there's the issue of spelling. Let's talk spelling. Here's an idea: if you want me to give you 2 hours 25 minutes of my undivided attention (1 hour interviewing, 40 minutes preparation, 10 minutes discussion with fellow interviewer before hand, 15 minutes post-interview discussion and note taking and then 20 minutes discussion with HR) then you spend 5 minutes reading your application form. 19 spelling mistakes in four pages just suggests to me that you don't really care. I was wrong about that. You really do care, and you put a lot of effort in. But you'd already put me offside before we'd met. I remained open minded but you didn't dispel my fears well.

Using the word "pants" to describe something during an interview is not funny or clever. Well, maybe it is funny, but only in the sense that your decision to use that word at the start of your interview was a highly comical one in terms of the extent to which it polaxed your chances after all that effort. If I'm pally don't assume you can be. Approachable, yes, but not pally. I may be checking your judgement out. I was, in fact, and you really fell into a heffalump trap. Ooooh I am a student, it said. I almost expected you to say "wa-eva" when I said thanks for coming at the end of our marathon session.

Oh and why don't you try actually answering some questions rather than regailing me with a stream of p1ss which takes me through your personal and private life and all of your thoughts (you "showed your working" as you spoke - I could actually hear your brain) but, alas, does not actually deliver anything close to a proper response to what was, by any measure, a real learner question designed to allow you an easy warm up. Why was it a tough interview? Because you made it tough. You got your knickers in a twist on the simple stuff and tried to redeem yourself by being clever clever on the more complex issues.

As to the complex issues, listen mate: don't use jargon you don't understand because, chances are, even with me interviewing you, the interviewers will have a greater technical vocabulary than you and will spot that you are bull****ting us. If we suspect you are, then we are genetically programmed to pounce. We are fecking court advocates after all. Sorry, but we can't let it go. That is our social handicap. But if you don't like that, then bear in mind how many of us you will meet in your career if you get to pursue it.

Another thing: If you have contacts in the firm then use them to find out what the cocking hell we actually do for a living. Turning up saying "I know Reggie" then displaying a greater degree of ignorance about us than a horse would if cross-examined on the subject of equitable set-off is, I'm afraid, a quick way to encourage us to conclude that you are not hungry for the job.

Body language: sit up you vvanker. Don't slouch. God gave you a backbone so your head would be above your waist except when being bummed by partners.

Also, there are two people interviewing you. The one on the left and the one on the right. Speak to the person asking you the question. If you feel you are leaving the other one out, then speak to him as if referring for emphasis, then back to the questioner. Don't hover with a mid-range gaze at the gap in between. At one point I looked to see if you had sat your invisible friend down beside me. He seemed to be getting the lion's share of that odd thing you offered in place of "attention".

Talking faster, and louder and jumping in when someone is half way through a question is NOT a way to cover up for ignorance. You cannot cover up for ignorance. Just say "I don't know the answer to that. It's not something I have any experience of." Move on, wait for a question you can handle well and then knock the bad balls to the boundary. We are here to test how you handle what you know not how ignorant you are about things which you have never thought about. If it were the latter, we'd get Hawking in to test you on String Theory.

Less is more, Grasshopper. Don't ramble. We are not having cozy fireside drunken banter with no particular purpose other than to demonstrate what a top card you are and how I should really take you home to fvck my sister. I won't take you on because you're a "good bloke". I want precise, level-headed, well-structured ANSWERS to my COCKING QUESTIONS. I might think you are definitely NOT a good bloke but admire the way your mind works and see a place for you in the business. You will not "style" your way in these days.

Choose your examples carefully. Telling me how much you hated your work experience somewhere because they told you to work harder is a BAD CHOICE OF SUBJECT MATTER BADLY PUT. And telling a rambling tale about how you fell out with an old friend over something when you were in charge and he wouldn't listen just makes me want to ring that person up and say "you're well out mate".

Plus, generally: you're well odd, you are. Why did you go on about that person and her drugs problem, eh? Where DID you think that was going? And that thing on the form which you said you were "lucky enough to experience".

I can only conclude you were packing a hidden camera and that Dom Jolly was behind all of this. If so, it wasn't actually very funny. If not, God help us all.

Reply 1

Profesh

chalks

Turning up saying "I know Reggie" then displaying a greater degree of ignorance about us than a horse would if cross-examined on the subject of equitable set-off is, I'm afraid, a quick way to encourage us to conclude that you are not hungry for the job.