|
Teddles posted:There were some questions about what I thought I would be doing for the first two years, why I wanted the position, etc. I thought I answered pretty well, I'd done my research and I legitimately thought the qualification I would get would be better than in other places, but apparently I didn't do as well as I thought. Did you tell them you were going for the job because it would get you a better qualification? Because that paired with: Teddles posted:again, I wouldn't mind, but being criticised for my career motivation by an organisation at which the mass exodus of graduates who've used and abused it to get their qualifications and then say "gently caress you bye" is practically an annual tradition stings a bit. makes it sound like you're just in it to get the Big 4 name and then peace like everyone else does once the qualification is on your resume. I'm starting with a Big 4 next year and the attrition rate is pretty insane though. They want you to say you'll stay for 3-5+ years, but mask that in bs about being excited for the exciting work you'll handle during those years. Or something like that.
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2013 03:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 09:10 |
|
|
Volmarias posted:This is the point I'm trying to make; the phone screen round isn't about seeing if the candidate sounds like a team player, it's about seeing if the candidate is even minimally competent, with the in-person part of the interview being a good place to assess their confidence, charisma, drive, etc. The instructions that you give imply that the best way to nail the phone screen part of the interview is to be confident and sound like a winner. It's not. The best way to nail the phone screen part of the interview is to know what you're even doing. I'm willing to give you a moment to rustle through your resume, but I'm not going to give you 30 minutes to pretend that you know how to count, when you refuse to tell me what 2+2 is. For example, say you're deciding between two programming candidates. Candidate #1 codes a great solution solving for 2+2, but is clearly nervous and can hardly answer a question without stammering. Candidate #2 makes a similarly great solution for the problem, and also oozes confidence while clearly articulating his/her talking points. Both candidates make it past the phone interview, but candidate #2 leaves a much better impression going into the in-person interview. Obviously, you're looking for competent candidates; FON's advice applies when you're one of those candidates trying to get a job. You can't just assume you're the only candidate with the skills for the job and that's enough to get you in, you want to maximize your chances for success and be able to communicate that competence.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2013 03:21
|
|