Things I've learned as a recent grad

[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.

 

[JakeBrodskyPE]

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.

Like the people that work for them, not all companies are as ethical or decent as we'd like. I have had the misfortune of working with such companies in the past, and I didn't stick around.

Nevertheless, you feel obligated to tar them all with that same brush. The alternative, since you seem to think you know better than the rest of us, is to start a business of your own. Then you can set your own standards.

 

[Locrian]

Well I can understand that different people would have differing opinions about how many interviews is optimal. When you're actually looking for work, though, I'd advise the following:

• There can be lots of interviews, and companies that give lots of interviews may well make you an offer.
• Be ready for any question at any time, even if you think you've moved to a different part of the process.
• Be appreciative of the time people are taking from their day to speak with you.

For on-site interviews, I would add an additional piece of advice:

As always, be ready to explain why you would like to work in the position you're interviewing for. But don't rule out the possibility that there are other open positions. If it's a large organization and they might be considering you for more than just the one you applied for. Be honest about where your interest lies, but keep an open mind throughout the process. If you find yourself interviewing with someone who seems only marginally related to the position you thought you were there for, there may be other options available to you.

 

[atyy]

Like the people that work for them, not all companies are as ethical or decent as we'd like. I have had the misfortune of working with such companies in the past, and I didn't stick around.

Nevertheless, you feel obligated to tar them all with that same brush. The alternative, since you seem to think you know better than the rest of us, is to start a business of your own. Then you can set your own standards.

The bad thing is can you get a job if you don't work for these unethical companies? Unfortunately, in some economies, the answer appears to be "no". Do you have advice on what to do, since you did work for some of these companies?

 

[jesse73]

Nevertheless, you feel obligated to tar them all with that same brush. The alternative, since you seem to think you know better than the rest of us, is to start a business of your own. Then you can set your own standards.

However those unethical things like putting a job out there while planning to hire h1b's are competitive advantages in the sense that they will get talent for cheaper by flying someone in from abroad who will not ask for the money someone from here will. This will keep down costs and this will reflect on their lower operating costs higher profit which will then be rewarded in the form of higher stock price if the company is publicly traded.

 

[JakeBrodskyPE]

The bad thing is can you get a job if you don't work for these unethical companies? Unfortunately, in some economies, the answer appears to be "no". Do you have advice on what to do, since you did work for some of these companies?

I won't name names of companies because while the name of the company still exists, the ownership has changed at least once and probably more since the days when I worked there.

Learning who meets your sense of ethics and who doesn't is difficult. Often that situation exists even within the same division of the same company. I've seen unethical things happen and employees leave following an attempt to abuse their professional certification. I've seen people get taken off to Federal Prison for theft. Learn to keep your ears to the ground and find out who is nice to work with and who isn't. Thankfully, I've had the good fortune of working with some very capable, honest, and fun people for most of my career.

But some are incompetent. Some are unethical, and some are just plain difficult to be with. It is wise in those cases to always keep your ears to the ground and get ready to apply for new positions as they open up. And yes, I have seen people walk away without any job prospects to walk in to.

Remember, your mental health is important too. If your work makes you crazy enough to want to treat yourself poorly, it's time to leave. What good is the money if you hate yourself for being there?

Poor economy or not, be broad minded about what you like to do. You may find yourself doing things you never thought you'd do --and enjoying it!

Some aim at the prestige and that's it. Frankly, I'd rather talk to a happy guy who picks up my trash every week then to talk to a rich buffoon with an inflated sense of self worth. You are not your job. You are you. If you can't find work that pays the bills, pick up, and go live somewhere where you can pay your bills and make enough money to support yourself. And if your education serves you well, Great. But it doesn't have to. Sometimes it's just the experience of getting that education that matters. It's the experience of learning to think for yourself.

Good Luck!

 

[Locrian]

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

Aero51's post above is referring to my job interviews with one company. I strongly disagreed with Aero51's sentiment at the time, but until the company made me an offer, I didn't have any evidence Aero51 was wrong. I promised myself I'd come back later and provide the results for readers to judge.

Not too long after Aero51's post I called this company up. . . and asked them for a fifth interview. Of the five interviews, one was with HR, and one was an on-site interview. I talked to around a dozen different people in total, from six different areas of the company.

The company later made me an offer and I accepted. The job has been working out very well and I feel that both the company and I are glad we put as much time and effort into ensuring this was a good match as we did.

We typically see interviews as a time the employer is judging us, but it's also a time we're judging them.

 

[lisab]

Aero51's post above is referring to my job interviews with one company. I strongly disagreed with Aero51's sentiment at the time, but until the company made me an offer, I didn't have any evidence Aero51 was wrong. I promised myself I'd come back later and provide the results for readers to judge.

Not too long after Aero51's post I called this company up. . . and asked them for a fifth interview. Of the five interviews, one was with HR, and one was an on-site interview. I talked to around a dozen different people in total, from six different areas of the company.

The company later made me an offer and I accepted. The job has been working out very well and I feel that both the company and I are glad we put as much time and effort into ensuring this was a good match as we did.

We typically see interviews as a time the employer is judging us, but it's also a time we're judging them.

Very good point. IMO when an applicant goes into an interview knowing this, it gives an extra boost of confidence. But, unfortunately, when an applicant is feeling desperate (which is often the case), it's hard to remember the interview is going both ways.