Interview or Interrogation?

[Rageaholic]

Yeah, another interview thread, but this one is specifically about the questions they ask. I get the feeling that they're deliberatly trying to trip you up so they can see how you'll react. A couple of weeks ago, I had an interview where I actually prepared a list of answers for the standard questions. Yet even with my answers, I was still tripped up.

The guy asked me about my strengths. I gave the standard bullshit answers. And he responded "what else?"....

.
.
.
.
.
.


FUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How I am supposed to respond to that when I already gave the answers? I mean, I obviously can't say "nothing else" because that would look bad. But since I already answered the damn question, I don't have anything else to say, DO I?

That's just one example. I've had interviewers continually harp on things like my schedule even though I don't know all the classes I'm taking yet. If I say I'm only taking one class, it makes me look like a slacker. If I say I'm taking more, they'll know that I'm not as available. But no matter what I answer, they always manage to find something wrong with it by asking more pesky questions and getting me to contradict myself. Like I said in the thread title, is this an interview or interrogation? Because I sure feel like a crime suspect when asked those questions.

One more thing, I hate it when they ask, "Are you sure you could handle this?", as if they don't think I would be good. I can understand asking this once, but when you ask it two, three, ten times, it makes me wonder why they even asked me for the job if they didn't think I would be good at it. Then again, I guess that's better than the bitch who straight up told me "well you don't have any experience" after one minute of interviewing. Again, WHY EVEN HAVE ME COME IN?

I hate the interview process. I really really do.

[insertNameHere]

Congratulations my life got so much easier when I realized this fact, an interview is just so they can find reasons NOT to hire you. Actually, been assured by some hiring people it can be best to lie... worst case they find out and you actually end up closer to getting a job than if you feel for a question and answered honestly. Don't go to over the top but forgeting your real weaknesses is good. Or at least ones your not working on to improve. I love how I fell for what would previous bosses say about you and then I found out they wouldn't say things one way or another most are only able to say dates of employment and what you made.

[Nekojin]

The guy asked me about my strengths. I gave the standard bullshit answers. And he responded "what else?"....

That's because they know you (and every other interviewee) has some memorized stock answers, and want to hear YOU think and speak, not your rehearsed liner notes.

And, of course, iNH is correct - the interview is to weed out the people they find unacceptable. That makes it easier to pick the best candidate from whoever is left.

[TheHuckster]

A lot of those kinds of questions gauge more your personality than your skill level. With a worthwhile employer, the only way you can really incorrectly answer the "weaknesses" question is either:

a.) By answering "I have no weaknesses"

b.) By answering with a weakness that is fundamental to the job (i.e. as a cashier you can't count money)

c.) By answering with "vodka" or "cocaine"

If you answer with something like, "People have said I need to smile more" or "On occasion I don't pay attention to the line and forget to call for backup" they know two things: That you are aware of your weaknesses and those weaknesses can be improved on with some discipline and training, plus they aren't dealbreakers. A good employer knows everyone has flaws and as long as the person with them is willing to work on them, they can't hold you against that when deciding to hire you.

That said, there are plenty of bad employers who don't understand the purpose of those questions and think someone who admits their flaws aren't worthy of employment. If you get rejected by that kind of employer, it's for the best, because I guarantee you your colleagues and bosses would have been miserable to work with.

[Nekojin]

If you answer with something like, "People have said I need to smile more" or "On occasion I don't pay attention to the line and forget to call for backup" they know two things: That you are aware of your weaknesses and those weaknesses can be improved on with some discipline and training, plus they aren't dealbreakers. A good employer knows everyone has flaws and as long as the person with them is willing to work on them, they can't hold you against that when deciding to hire you.

I recall one "How to Interview" article that suggested that the best way to answer that question was to use one of your strengths and invert it so that it sounds like a weakness. Do you prefer to finish one task before starting another? When asked about a weakness, say something like, "I tend to get absorbed in the task in front of me, perhaps a little too much."

It's hokey, but it supposedly works.

[indigo]

The question I hated getting asked the most was "Would you turn out inferior work just to make a deadline?" I feel like there's no right answer to that. Either you say no and basically say that you don't mind missing deadlines, or you say yes, implying that you'll cut corners.

I ended up saying that it depended on the project and the urgency of the deadline.

[TheHuckster]

I recall one "How to Interview" article that suggested that the best way to answer that question was to use one of your strengths and invert it so that it sounds like a weakness. Do you prefer to finish one task before starting another? When asked about a weakness, say something like, "I tend to get absorbed in the task in front of me, perhaps a little too much."

It's hokey, but it supposedly works.

I question how well it works. I think some employers might get "fooled" by it, but some could see right through it. To me, answers like that sound as though you are answering with something like "my only weakness is I'm too awesome for my own good."

The problem with so many of these kinds of tips is they're based on anecdotal evidence at best. Someone, somewhere, answered the question with something like that, got hired, and hey, it's gotta work for everybody!

I ended up saying that it depended on the project and the urgency of the deadline.

That's the best answer you can give, IMO. The problem with questions like that is they are too vague to be answered with a definite. If the project is a Boeing 737, then of course you have to extend the deadline and not release a flawed airplane. If it's something like a website and the flaws are minor, then it might be best to meet the deadline. You can always fix a website. Once the deadline has passed, there's nothing you can do to fix that.