I suck at job interviews/I hate my job and everyone sucks[MEGATHREAD?]

[Equium Duo]

Had the second part of a job interview on Tuesday, which was a couple of hours trial work. They gave me a coding exercise and watched me (video conference) solve it. Though they're seeking a C# developer, they would have let me done it in VB.NET, which I'm very familiar with. I declined that, stating that taught myself C# when being unemployed, therefore I'm still quite new to it and would like to practice it whenever I can.

This is the 1st time I've ever done some kind of test in a job interview, so I have no comparison. Dunno how it went. I'm not good at pointing out what I'm good at/have done well. I'm better at spotting the bad stuff. The exercises wasn't hard and straight forward (read certain nodes from a XML file, write them back to a MarkDown file in a certain way/order). Half way through I recognized I messed up the supposed order, but that was easy to fix. Later on I blacked out on a good way to parse a string (parts of it were needed for the MD file). I knew I've done that before and while I typically also remember in which project*) I've done it, that escaped me this time around. I'm old enough to not be afraid of telling "I don't know (it/that)", so I pointed out where I'm stuck at and with a hint from them, I came up with the solution.

Let's wait and see what they think of it.

*) Google, SO, looking in your own code etc. were allowed

Sounds like you did a good job. Fingers crossed!

I've not done many technical assignments in interviews, the weirdest one was for a GE in a customer facing position. They rode me hard for the entire interview, pointing out my flaws and issues aggressively. This was a "test" to see how I would handle the pressure.. I didnt carry on with the job application.

[Lowa [NSN]]

I've not done many technical assignments in interviews, the weirdest one was for a GE in a customer facing position. They rode me hard for the entire interview, pointing out my flaws and issues aggressively. This was a "test" to see how I would handle the pressure.. I didnt carry on with the job application.

I never understood those types of interviews/tests. Its like "do many of our/your customer have reason to be aggressive and not nice to us/is part of your corp culture being aggressive and pressuring instead of helping?"

I dont know anyone that has chosen to continue after being subjected to it. Because why the fuck would you want to work at a place that expects you be presented with such situations and handle it on a regular basis.

[Nordstern]

The tests have at least three purposes:

1. By subjecting you to a brief period of artificial stress, they want to evaluate your response. If you can't handle stress in a controlled environment, can they rely on you when shit hits the fan?
2. To see how you handle criticism. Many people take honest criticism poorly. They want to make sure you're not one of those people.
2. To weed out the weak, a practice probably borrowed from the military.

If they were willing to give you hints and didn't seem impatient, that bodes well for you.

[whispous]

The tests have at least three purposes:

1. By subjecting you to a brief period of artificial stress, they want to evaluate your response. If you can't handle stress in a controlled environment, can they rely on you when shit hits the fan?
2. To see how you handle criticism. Many people take honest criticism poorly. They want to make sure you're not one of those people.
2. To weed out the weak, a practice probably borrowed from the military.

If they were willing to give you hints and didn't seem impatient, that bodes well for you.

It also is some effort to find who is faking, which is a real thing

[Lowa [NSN]]

The tests have at least three purposes:

1. By subjecting you to a brief period of artificial stress, they want to evaluate your response. If you can't handle stress in a controlled environment, can they rely on you when shit hits the fan?
2. To see how you handle criticism. Many people take honest criticism poorly. They want to make sure you're not one of those people.
2. To weed out the weak, a practice probably borrowed from the military.

If they were willing to give you hints and didn't seem impatient, that bodes well for you.

It also is some effort to find who is faking, which is a real thing

Weed out the weak? what the fucked up "Im a badass" shit talk is that?
At what point does shit hit the fan so bad + that you must take care of it alone. Unless this is emergency services, life or death situations or like energy grid/nuclear plant power failures there isnt a job this is required for.

How to take criticism and being asked to describe what you suck at is fine, as well as checking that you are not completely lying on your application is (or at least should be) standard, but not really requires interrogation techniques.

[Equium Duo]

I've been in interviews where I am robustly challenged on my ideas. But that interview was different, it was intentionally anagonising and often not constructive. More like I was being goaded.

[indi]

I've been in interviews where I am robustly challenged on my ideas. But that interview was different, it was intentionally anagonising and often not constructive. More like I was being goaded.

I had that happen to me a few years back. Not for the entire interview, but for a set of questions. The purpose was, I suppose looking back, to goad me into exposing myself as someone who was indeed faking something. It was such a completely random thing, all it did was boggle me. And I said that too - "why would I do that?"

[Equium Duo]

I've been in interviews where I am robustly challenged on my ideas. But that interview was different, it was intentionally anagonising and often not constructive. More like I was being goaded.

I had that happen to me a few years back. Not for the entire interview, but for a set of questions. The purpose was, I suppose looking back, to goad me into exposing myself as someone who was indeed faking something. It was such a completely random thing, all it did was boggle me. And I said that too - "why would I do that?"

Exactly, I dont want to be treated like that, if that IS what they are expecting.

[Hel OWeen]

Well, I didn't make. Too bad, as both interviews vwere very relaxed and I liked the atmosphere.

My C# apparently isn't (yet) good enough. I appreciate that feedback and also was surprised I got real feedback at all.

With the invention of the "Gleichstellungsgesetz" (~ "equal opportunities law"), companies are very cautious when it comes to stating a reason why they didn't pick you, as apparently candidates used that to sue companies ... which may be a total reasonable thing to do or an attempt to blackmal the company. Either way, in my experience companies don't provide any feedback/reason at all.

[Lallante]

I've been in interviews where I am robustly challenged on my ideas. But that interview was different, it was intentionally anagonising and often not constructive. More like I was being goaded.

I had that happen to me a few years back. Not for the entire interview, but for a set of questions. The purpose was, I suppose looking back, to goad me into exposing myself as someone who was indeed faking something. It was such a completely random thing, all it did was boggle me. And I said that too - "why would I do that?"

Exactly, I dont want to be treated like that, if that IS what they are expecting.

"We are terrible to work for - can you handle it?" lol

[Hel OWeen]

Yeah, that is what I typically got when being unemployed and interviewing. As I said, this (in Germany) is due the mentioned legislation. At least that's what HR of my former employer told me.

[Melichor]

Well, I didn't make. Too bad, as both interviews vwere very relaxed and I liked the atmosphere.

My C# apparently isn't (yet) good enough. I appreciate that feedback and also was surprised I got real feedback at all.

With the invention of the "Gleichstellungsgesetz" (~ "equal opportunities law"), companies are very cautious when it comes to stating a reason why they didn't pick you, as apparently candidates used that to sue companies ... which may be a total reasonable thing to do or an attempt to blackmal the company. Either way, in my experience companies don't provide any feedback/reason at all.

Sorry you didn't get the position, but I liked that they gave the feedback. In my usual experience it was some generic form letter "we decided to go a different direction" bs and when I asked for feedback it was usually a ghosting

[indi]

Yeah, that is what I typically got when being unemployed and interviewing. As I said, this (in Germany) is due the mentioned legislation. At least that's what HR of my former employer told me.

All that means is that the people suing were probably right. Mind you, I think most companies just are too lazy to give candidates proper feedback. But: plenty of them actually do not want to employ (non exhaustive list) if they don't absolutely have to: pregnant women, women who might get pregnant in the foreseeable future, people of colour, people who are over 45, people who have had sickness in their past, people who don't (in whatever way) look like the mainstream, etc. etc. So if you have to resort to not telling people why they didn't make the cut, your reasons probably aren't great.

Source: I frequently interview people for positions and I am also often the one who tells them why they a) weren't interviewed, b) didn't make it to the next round, c) didn't make it to the salary negotiation. Plenty of times it comes down to 'the competition was better' and usually you can explain why that is. Examples include: more experience directly suited to the role, better performance during the interview*, etc. In my experience candidates usually recognize the feedback and are happy with it.

* And of course you tell the candidate where they might have done better, e.g. explain more/better why you feel you are a fit for this position, prepare better for the interview, etc.

[Hel OWeen]

Of course I don't know the real practice at our company, but judging from our employees, very few of your points apply. I worked in a female dominated industry and the vast majority of our employees were female. Same with heritage. Just in my department we had people from Pakistan (head of department), England, Belarus, Montenegro and Germany.

The story I got that from was one guy (ofc a man!) suing as. He was very well educated (university degree), but otherwise lacked all qualifications for a travel agent. He tried to make that into some kind of discrimination thing.

The company was crap in other areas, but from my experience in that regard we did well.

[indi]

Of course I don't know the real practice at our company, but judging from our employees, very few of your points apply. I worked in a female dominated industry and the vast majority of our employees were female. Same with heritage. Just in my department we had people from Pakistan (head of department), England, Belarus, Montenegro and Germany.

The story I got that from was one guy (ofc a man!) suing as. He was very well educated (university degree), but otherwise lacked all qualifications for a travel agent. He tried to make that into some kind of discrimination thing.

The company was crap in other areas, but from my experience in that regard we did well.

Good to hear! As for the original argument... because someone tried (and presumably failed), you just adapt your whole policy? Seems sketchy. So I'm happy your company was diverse

[Hel OWeen]

I can't tell if this one example someone in HR told me about made them change the policy or if this was a recurring issue.

But I could very well imagine the later. Germans (and Austrians and Swiss) love to sue and use their legal expenses insurance for something. And if HR's time is sucked into managing lawsuits instead of doing actual HR work that way, I could see them adapting a better-be-safe-than-sorry policy.

Whatever happened - it's yet another example of why we can't have nice things. A moron sued and now everyone else is stuck with vague feedback instead of factual critic upon which one could improve. Not everyone does, ofc. But those who would are left wondering what went wrong and needs to improve.

[Joe Appleby]

legal expenses insurance

In Germany most of the legal expenses of both parties are paid by the losing side. Your insurance will look at the case beforehand and calculate their chances of winning. If they deem your chances high enough, they will suggest suing. Otherwise they'll make sure you understand what losing means - not all insurances cover lost law suits in all cases.