Job Hunting

[Merus]

I've got an interview for a job which required me to do psychometric tests in my own time, then another test on the day of the interview. It's ridiculous. The psychometric tests were numerical and verbal analytical reasoning skills and incredibly frustrating. I'm pretty good at both those things, but I just got constantly thrown by the format and timed element of the test. I don't know what they're supposed to show except for how good someone is at these exact tests. Companies are pissing money away on these things and being led to give jobs to people who may not actually be any good at them unless they consist of doing stupid tests all day.

 

I did one of these recently, they wanted me to fill in the next number in the sequence. No worries, they had those on the Mensa test, it'll be fine --

 

it was easily the hardest one of these I've ever seen. The number sequences barely had any logic holding them together, and getting people to crack them in 2 minutes was just cruel.

[Griddlelol]

Of those, Myers-Briggs is especially wooey. Between that and the closed doors sessions at GDC, if I didn't know people who worked in HR departments, they'd seem like a really weird priesthood.

 

The weird thing about HR, is that they're meant to know what people are needed for a job, without ever having done that job. In highly technical areas, they will likely know less about 

They're also meant to be the intermediaries between management and general staff...but are still below the management, and have their salaries paid by them.

 

HR departments are basically a boondoggle in my opinion.

[osmosisch]

I did one of these recently, they wanted me to fill in the next number in the sequence. No worries, they had those on the Mensa test, it'll be fine --

 

it was easily the hardest one of these I've ever seen. The number sequences barely had any logic holding them together, and getting people to crack them in 2 minutes was just cruel.

Those are trick questions - the correct answer is 'any number' because with a list of finite size there's infinite possible algorithms to generate the next number.

[melmer]

[Zeusthecat]

The weird thing about HR, is that they're meant to know what people are needed for a job, without ever having done that job. In highly technical areas, they will likely know less about 

They're also meant to be the intermediaries between management and general staff...but are still below the management, and have their salaries paid by them.

 

HR departments are basically a boondoggle in my opinion.

I totally agree. They are too disconnected from the actual jobs they are evaluating people for. We had one highly qualified person apply who also came with a solid recommendation from me and we didn't even get an opportunity to interview him. The reason? They deemed his experience developing video games was not relevant to the type of development we do. He was literally one of the most qualified candidates we had seen.

[Twig]

I totally agree. They are too disconnected from the actual jobs they are evaluating people for. We had one highly qualified person apply who also came with a solid recommendation from me and we didn't even get an opportunity to interview him. The reason? They deemed his experience developing video games was not relevant to the type of development we do. He was literally one of the most qualified candidates we had seen.

hehehehe

[Ben X]

Had an interview today, went pretty badly. I'm sick of shitty meaningless tests that I do badly at despite being good at the things they're presumably testing for, and stupid shitty questions like "tell me about a time when you were given negative feedback by your manager and how you reacted" that are difficult for me to answer (due to lazy managers or freelance work where that kind of thing didn't really happen or generally only getting good feedback because I'm a good fucking worker) and yet this tells them nothing about how good I'd be in this position. I'm constantly baffled by people who are looking for someone to fill a role that will affect their work significantly and seem to have no specific, pertinent questions, only bullshit Generic Interview 101 stuff. The entire thing could be done by a member of HR staff who knows nothing about the role. I AM A GOOD, EXPERIENCED WORKER WHO WANTS TO MAKE YOUR LIFE EASIER. STOP PUTTING HURDLES IN MY WAY!

[Merus]

Man, it's a behavioural question. They don't care about managers so much as they care about how you deal with negative feedback, and if you've never got negative feedback then that's a red flag.

[tegan]

I handed out some resumes today; I came this close to landing a job at the Art Shack, but they need someone bilingual. Comic Hunter isn't hiring anytime soon, but they need volunteers next month to help them move, so I might do that. Chapters told me to apply online so I'll do that this weekend.

 

Feels good to do something at least.

 

Oh, and I made $55 USD for three commissions. It would be nice if this stayed sustainable.

[syntheticgerbil]

Had an interview today, went pretty badly. I'm sick of shitty meaningless tests that I do badly at despite being good at the things they're presumably testing for, and stupid shitty questions like "tell me about a time when you were given negative feedback by your manager and how you reacted" that are difficult for me to answer (due to lazy managers or freelance work where that kind of thing didn't really happen or generally only getting good feedback because I'm a good fucking worker) and yet this tells them nothing about how good I'd be in this position.

Hmmm, I don't know the standard response to this one, but I'm sure tons of websites have the answer, because all these people do is just copy and paste questions they read on other sites as well. It's just a stupid game where you lie. Never tell the truth unless it's something they can actually check, like work history (unless the company is out of business, then lie some more).

 

I mean if you have a truthful amazing example it works, but it sounds like this interviewer was as dull as the questions they asked so they probably just want to  hear the answer on their cheat sheet.

[Ben X]

Yeah exactly, it just leads to me telling them little made up stories, it doesn't help them or me. And no matter how many I prepare, there's always a new stupid anecdote request, so all they're really testing for is how good I am at lying to their faces on the spot.

[syntheticgerbil]

Ask for them to wait a second while you check your phone for answers.

[Ben X]

Ask for them to wait a second while you check your phone for answers.

 

Ha ha, totally doing this next time. "When I was working at insert company name, my manager gave me negative feedback for working too hard. I was happy to accept this feedback and proceeded to work the correct amount forever and ever more, then end."

[Mangela Lansbury]

what do you do when you're offered a job that is basically your dream job, but it pays nowhere near enough for you to pay your bills

[Ben X]

Ask for more money, find a way to make more money in your spare time (second job?), or decline and wait until an opportunity allows you to get paid properly for doing it...

[Griddlelol]

I AM A GOOD, EXPERIENCED WORKER WHO WANTS TO MAKE YOUR LIFE EASIER. STOP PUTTING HURDLES IN MY WAY!

The thing is, so are about a million other people who are applying for the job. They need to cut down some how, and to me how you take criticism is pretty OK way to do it.

Honestly I wouldn't know what to say either. "Erm, I just said sorry and did the thing again, but right."

[Nachimir]

what do you do when you're offered a job that is basically your dream job, but it pays nowhere near enough for you to pay your bills

 

The first thing I'd do is look for any prospects it has to pay more, and if they exist see if I can reduce my living costs to cover the gap for however many months it'd likely take.

[syntheticgerbil]

Ha ha, totally doing this next time. "When I was working at insert company name, my manager gave me negative feedback for working too hard. I was happy to accept this feedback and proceeded to work the correct amount forever and ever more, then end."

Nope, not the correct amount, 110% of course!

[Ben X]

The thing is, so are about a million other people who are applying for the job. They need to cut down some how, and to me how you take criticism is pretty OK way to do it.

 

Of course, but they don't ask how I take criticism, they ask me to come up with an anecdote on the spot. Unless I'm interviewing to be a talk show guest, they're not testing for the right thing.

 

My next interview will require me to do a short aptitude test, then do a 5 minute speech on a prepared question ("How will the forthcoming changes to UK qualifications affect the work of University Admissions departments?"), then a 40 minute interview. The position does not involve me doing presentations or speeches, or require me to lie to my managers in the moment, but that's what they'll be testing for.

[dibs]

It's an entrenched system, and it appears to the users to work most of the time....so, play the system and burn it down from the inside once you are there.

[SuperBiasedMan]

The best way to check how you take criticism would probably be to actually start criticising you in the interview and gauging your response.

[Ben X]

The best way to check how you take criticism would probably be to actually start criticising you in the interview and gauging your response.

 

I would actually prefer this!

 

Dibs - good idea. Maybe I'll start applying for HR jobs...

[SuperBiasedMan]

Bonus points, asking the shitty anecdote question to them provoke a poor response and criticise that response.

[Griddlelol]

Of course, but they don't ask how I take criticism, they ask me to come up with an anecdote on the spot. Unless I'm interviewing to be a talk show guest, they're not testing for the right thing.

 

My next interview will require me to do a short aptitude test, then do a 5 minute speech on a prepared question ("How will the forthcoming changes to UK qualifications affect the work of University Admissions departments?"), then a 40 minute interview. The position does not involve me doing presentations or speeches, or require me to lie to my managers in the moment, but that's what they'll be testing for.

 

I'm not saying the way they do it is right, I'm saying they need to do something. If they end up relying on clichés, they are probably just inexperienced, or following a script because they have to tick boxes.

My current boss had an extremely blunt interview style. No bullshit, just direct questions. It was fantastic, but some people find that incredibly off-putting. Can't win 'em all. I wouldn't put it past him to criticise someone directly, but that's less "how do you handle criticism" but more "how do you handle stressful interviews."

[Mangela Lansbury]

what do you do when you're offered a job that is basically your dream job, but it pays nowhere near enough for you to pay your bills

 

So, this job ended up being a no go. There was no way to make it work. BUT, I still have the option to add a full time job on top of my full time job and the various other things I do to make life work. It would basically be chronicling a history of queer life in Detroit during and after the AIDS epidemic for not nearly enough to do it, but it's something I am incredibly passionate about. I don't know if it would be something that would just add stress to my life or something I could thrive on, though. I know enough about the academic landscape that I could get a decent start, but I don't know enough about the methodologies involved that I'm 100% sure that I could carry it out.

 

Basically, I'm stuck in a weird place with the university I quasi-work for: Do I commit to something I'm not sure I could follow through on just on the hope that passion is enough, or do I pass because someone else would serve that money better and I'm already doing enough to get by?