to hate employers who say this?

[MagicStarz]

I apply for a job, take a day of annual leave to attend an interview, buy new clothes for said interview, prepare for questions, pay for petrol to get there etc etc.

I then get an email a few days later saying they regret to tell me I have been unsuccessful, and they employed someone who has more experience.

They knew how much experience I had before the interview, as everything is listed on my application. I can't help but feel it's a waste of an interviewees time to invite them in for interviews, if you are going to go for someone with more experience.

I wouldn't mind so much if they said it was because someone else interviewed better, or they felt they'd be a better company fit. But saying it's because I don't have as much experience is a cop out, and shows they're just trying to fulfill a quota to say they interviewed x people for the role.

But the person with the more experience must have interviewed well.

I went for an (internal) job where they hired an external candidate in the end. Said she had more experience. I know they still interviewed me because she might not have turned up, she might have been awful in the interview, or just felt not a good fit, or she might have turned the job down. If any of those things had happened I'd likely have been offered the job as they said I interviewed really well.

And the last job I did get, I didn't have as much experience and didn't meet the essential criteria. But they said I interviewed well and that they thought I'd be a good fit for the team,......which they can't really know until they meet you.

Sorry you didn't get it.

You didn't get the job OP. Take your oil so to speak.
Better luck next time. Put it down to experience.

"Something I would always recommend doing is be gracious in your response, thank them for taking the time to see you and perhaps even ask to be kept in mind for future roles."

This doesn't work any more. With new data protections sensitivities, people will be too afraid to keep your CV on file. Really silly, in my opinion.

IMO, this is just an excuse employers give. It might not be about the experience at all and they just preferred another candidate.
Also, I've been told that I didn't 'demonstrate enough experience' i.e. they knew I had the experience, but I didn't answer the interview questions in the way they wanted to demonstrate it.

I think it’s the legally safe cop out to blame it on experience.

I was coming on here to say just this.

If they say someone else was a better fit or they interviewed better it opens the door, however small the gap, to claims of unfairness. Blaming it on experience is perfect as 99% of the times you cannot dispute that claim as you don't know the person and what level of experience they have.

Sorry you didn't get the job though. Job hunting is tough.

What annoys me is often there's a preferred candidate, internal or known to them, but because they are a public organisation or charity they have to advertise and interview, it's happened twice since Christmas to me but luckily the second time I found out so didn't bother interviewing

"What annoys me is often there's a preferred candidate, internal or known to them, but because they are a public organisation or charity they have to advertise and interview"

Yes, this is really awful. Pretty bad for the internal candidate who often has to interview for their own job, and a terrible waste of time for external candidates who have no chance.

0ur standard letters are along the lines of: on this occasion another candidate was able to demonstrate more clearly how they were able to meet the requirements of the role.

We always offer feedback and always give a relevant competency test. The paoer application gets an interview. The interview demonstrates your oral and interpersonal skills, the test sorts the sheep from the goats and tells me whether a person can do the job.

In my experience, often the very best and most carefully written application does not correlate to oerformance on the day.

If they will give you more detailed feedback - take it.

I recruit. They have given you the one line answer - it may well be true in summary but experience won’t have been the only thing required to get the job. I have frequently hired (or ranked higher) people with less experience.

Although I am looking for experience I ask quite a few behavioural questions and I place a lot of store by them. All the right experience plus the wrong attitude won’t score highly, someone with less experience but the ability to learn or apply what they know and support others on the way will shine.
A lot can be down to your general performance in an interview situation. Interviews alone aren’t the best way to recruit but unfortunately they are what’s used.

My worst experience was the folliwing feedback. You were overall the best candidate and very impressive. I am really sorry to be unable to offer you the job but we have a positive discrimination statement in our recruitment procedure.

There had been two roles out to advert. Interestingly the dept was out to ad again about six months later.

You could be gracious and ask for honest feedback OP. You must have been confident the job would be yours.
You may not have interviewed well.

What annoys me is often there's a preferred candidate, internal or known to them, but because they are a public organisation or charity they have to advertise and interview

This is really bad. It's so shit. This really is a waste of time.

I've given someone the job who had less experience in the past just because they were a better fit for the organisation and had loads of enthusiasm. If I had discounted their cv just based on years of experience I would have lost out on a really good team member!

If it makes you feel any better I took yesterday afternoon as unpaid leave to go to an interview, bought a new dress and spent all Sunday evening researching the company. Only to be called an hour before interview and told they had pulled the role!! Now that was frustrating!

I've interviewed candidates frequently; what's written on a CV is rarely an accurate guide to experience. Two candidates might list the same qualification, the same number of years performing a role and even list the same skills; but what they've actually done in those roles and how well they demonstrate the skills can be wildly different. That's what the interview is for, to find out their actual experience.

Public sector can be a different matter, where a preferred internal candidate might need to be challenged against other candidates because of recruitment rules. The bar then is higher, it won't be impossible to get the role but you'd have to be exceptional.

I was once told I didn’t get a job I interviewed for because my PhD was still in progress. They knew very well when they interviewed me that I was in the third year of my PhD. But they invited me anyway, and I wasted a week of said PhD study working on the job presentation and attending a two-day interview process.

but I believe it's extremely common that the real reason the company chose the candidate they did was down to race/sex/age/etc
I also agree this is really not the case.
I work in a financial institution in the City, often considered the worst for race/sex/old school tie bias. My last hire was a non white youngster with no experience, poor grades and who failed miserably at competence test. He was against several other youngsters who on paper were better and fit the City stereotype. But he had something undefinable. Three years on and he is astonishingly good at his role and I get compliments about him and his work constantly.
That is why the interview is so important

"Public sector can be a different matter, where a preferred internal candidate might need to be challenged against other candidates because of recruitment rules. The bar then is higher, it won't be impossible to get the role but you'd have to be exceptional."

No, sometimes it IS impossible. Often, the internal candidate is already doing the job, but has to interview to make it permanent or to move up a pay grade and the employer might have promised that internal candidate that they will get the job. The external candidate has NO chance in these situations. This is crap for everyone involved and the rules should change.

@Gwenhwyfar - very hard, but your impossible. Quite apart from my own experience there was a post on here just a few weeks ago where someone was in that position, the role details were made for her but it moved the role up a grade and she didn't get the job. Another one some months back had someone beaten by an external candidate despite a manager telling them they were a shoe-in because they were perfect.

I agree with you though that the rules should change, for example allowing a direct hire if someone has say 2 closely involved managers willing to vouch for them in a role they are already doing and their HR record has no issues. Far safer to get the candidate who can already do the job than relying solely on interview skills.

Oh I so get this. I am job hunting and its a pretty demoralising experience. I have been out of fulltime work for 8 years and I have done post grad stuff and volunteer work as well as part time work while raising kids I'm sure the gap isn't helping.
I had an interview today I know I botched - cos they grilled me about a skill I had no experience in, and I answered badly. Gah!

I employ and often interview people with less experience as well as more, I want to find the person who fits our practice.

In the end a great employee who fits with current team can grow while working with us. If someone has experience and will fit they will be employed over someone with less. But equally if you fit and have the right attitude over someone with more experience the role is yours.

It's a process matching a person to a role.

I have s job interview today so have been reading a lot around the topic and in teaching people have been saying the opposite. NQTs are more likely to be hired.

This happened to me this week, job was advertised, I applied, was selected, spent all weekend planning and prepping, attended the interview, got fantastic feedback on my unseen presentation.

I admit I stumbled on the questions about barriers to the role etc.

Didn't get the job, but, was told the person who had been in role for over 12 months (who had been given the job in a reshuffle ) got the job because they could articulate what barriers they may face etc better than me. No Shit Sherlock!

It was a complete and utter waste of my time and theirs.

Especially since, call me a cynic, but I believe it's extremely common that the real reason the company chose the candidate they did was down to race/sex/age/etc.

I've been involved in interviewing people for 30 years and I have never seen that happen. It's always been the candidate the panel consider to be most suited to the role.