To think this was unfair, and to take time off for mental health.

I think you've missed the point that the pp was making. You think you perform better, and you might even have solid evidence in terms of the technical stuff. The leadership side of things will be a subjective judgement though, and your employer may not share your assessment of your relative abilities.

I work full time with 2 children so I understand being busy. Op has a free day in the week also. You have to make time. Can’t use it as an excuse, or just don’t apply.

For you maybe. It depends entirely on when your free time falls. Weekdays evenings can be impossible for parents.

It sucks that you didn’t get the job but you knew how civil service interviews worked so were very naive to think you had it in the bag and not do the right amount of prep. A week was plenty of time

The number of people on this thread who think that ignoring someone's CV/.application in an interview is a good idea, really genuinely surprises me. Equal.ops used to be about blanking out age and race information and not asking about childcare- that sort of thing. But now I've had people swear blind that your actual experience which you've told people about in the application form is irrelevant and that this is equal opportunities. Even in jobs where the long view and local knowledge is a big asset.
What about the system whereby you make it clear what is assessed in the interview and what is taken from the application form? So things like ' extensive experience of' should be on the JD and taken at least partly from the application form and interviewers should be able to credit that. Local network knowledge should be at least a desirable quality. A person who has successfully done a job for lengths of time clearly shows that on the application form ought to get scored highly regulated n relation to someone who has not. I've seen JDs which read like a long list someone has brainstormed and responding is like a guessing game.

5 years is a long time ago and a lot in the world has changed drastically since COVID.

It really sucks to screw up in interview.

Just remember, it's not personal, you just have to score enough points and it's a very blunt instrument.

Start getting new examples now and keep them for next time progression rolls around. Try and show you can work above grade in them.

Hope you feel better soon! It's rough.

I'm shocked the civil service treated you like this when you returned from maternity. Public sector roles are usually very accommodating of mothers returning to part-time.

As for the interview, civil service interviews are the most rigid and inflexible of any in the public sector, which is notorious for rigid and inflexible interviews. They are not supposed to score you on anything they know of you outside of the what you say in the interview. Its basically a test of how you perform in that type of interview. I worked in the civil service for a while and knew a woman where the managers in her team were desperate to promote her, but she just could not perform well in the interview. She failed interview round after interview round whilst having managers who knew her work and really wanted to promote her in their team. Its a ridiculous situation.

You are struggling with a lot in your personal life on top of the added struggle of being a single working mother. Its completely understandable you are feeling depressed. You are holding up a lot without any support. You have to support your daughter 100% whilst having no support yourself.

Sorry things are so tough for you OP.

But you've interviewed people for civil service roles? You must have had training in their approach and know the game? Yes. It's inflexible and tricky but as an insider you have a huge advantage in knowing how to answer the questions already. I've been turned down for civil service positions I'm perfectly qualified for and I'm sure it's partly due to the way they score. It is what it is. Of course it's gutting not to get a job but they demonstrated better evidence at interview and that's what keeps interviewers out of disciplinary action and potentially court. You have to be able to justify your decision based on the recruitment process, not because you know the candidate. That would be completely wrong.

I mean this gently, but this may not be their opinion and the other candidate may have more experience. I understand why you wish to declare yourself better and this was just an admin issue, but the reality is they could have manipulated the scores, you clearly didn’t feel you did that badly at interview or you’d have known you’d not got it. You didn’t even suspect it. Which says the other candidate may have more to offer. Your statement that your better than them and have shown it, isn’t really something you’re able to judge,

if they are now to be your manager, you will need to try to accept they may have more potential and maybe better than you think.

yes you likely do have more experience and qualifications, but there is a much softer and wider judgement to be done in giving people roles.

You know people can use STAR evidence from a non work environment too? For example "Experience of managing a team" the evidence could be from organising and running a drama group outside of work.

And I've sat on enough cs panels and done enough interviews as a candidate to know how it actually works. You claimed a candidate was guaranteed to fail if they did not use the star method, that is not true. You are now back tracking a bit.it can hardly result in far fewer points when behaviours are scored 1-7 and strengths scored 1-4.

I, and others who i have been on panels with, are more than capable on judging a candidate who hasn't used star against someone who has. If you can't, then stop being on interview panels.

Develop some resilience, crack on and stop feeling like the world owes you a living.

Yes it is crazy it's an interviewer problem

In the ops case she was going for a job she had done previously. In addition worked at various levels well apparently and juggled kids.
So it wouldn't be difficult to appoint if you weight the experience which she can't fail to mention. Your criteria which you set needs to weight experience if you want experience.
Seems to me it's that simple. A person who just dipped into a role is just less qualified.

I'd say it fully depends on the sector, the evidencing, who is on the panel, and how close run the decision/scoring is.
I'm in Higher Education, and have been for 25 years. Managed many teams, and still not managed to appoint who I thought I would beforehand, when they turned up unprepared, and just didn't give answers which would be highly scored. You can manipulate a score of 1 or 2 points, but not 5 or 10....

I think some interviewers fundamentally misunderstood what they are doing, but are also given bad advice. Also the job spec for a skilled job ought to specify the importance of longevity of experience if that's valuable. A person who did something once shouldn't get a job over someone whose done it for years.

I've been a manager and I'm not sure what you are getting at. Its easy to employ a person who you know can do the job. It can be done in the blink of an eye.