AIBU - what was the point of interviewing me?!

[RosieAnne123]

I had a job interview for an area of nursing that I don't have direct experience in, but when I called enquiring about the job, the manager said it was suitable for nurses new to that field and encouraged my application.

I found out today that I did not get the job because there were other candidates with more experience. I asked for feedback regarding how I did at the interview and what I can improve upon, and the lady said that I was "really bubbly, so lovely and friendly at the interview and I displayed a through knowledge of that field of nursing" but that there were other candidates with more experience. I just feel like what was the point in interviewing me, if no wonder how well I did at the interview, they still would have chosen someone with more experience anyway?!

I guess they were hedging their bets, if no one with experience applied sounds like you would have got the job.

Often interviewers have a set number of people they want to interview - 5, 10, 20 - and there is an element of "making up the numbers" to get to their quota.

To make up the numbers to tick the boxes.

Frustrating, but try and look on it as good interview experience.

A person can have all the experience in the world, but be a terrible for for the team, which you won’t know until you interview them.

What if you’d been least experienced but the others had been awful?
What if they had no other experienced candidates?

You took a punt, you got interview practice, you got good feedback.

You can choose to be positive about that, or not.

It’s never pointless having an interview. You weren’t to know that more experienced people would apply. It’s also good practice for you.

I guess it's because sometimes candidates look good on paper with lots of experience, but when you meet them they're just not right for the role. If that had been the case then you probably would have got the job. But it sounds like there were other experienced candidates who also did well at interview so they decided to offer the job to them.

In a similar professional field I often arrange interviews and it's really common for people to call on the day to cancel (I.e because they have chickened out or accepted another role elsewhere) or for people to turn the job down when you offer it to them because they have had a better offer, have had second thoughts due to commute/family/not negotiating the pay they want etc.

We've also had people who look good on paper turn up and do an atrocious interview so they arent appointable.

So there is always a good reason to interview a number of people even if some have more experience than others.

The more experienced people could have come across as bumbling idiots and you could have got it- they'd no way of knowing. It's irritating, but it's one of those things you're supposed to chalk up to experience.

YABU

If the experienced person had done a crap interview you might have got the job. There was no way of knowing that before they did the interviews. They haven’t said lack of experience ruled you out, it’s just that experience is preferable.

You’ve had interview experience and feedback, that’s not a waste of time

One of my most successful ever hires was someone who had very little direct experience of the job but lots of transferrable skills. She was a bit of a wildcard in the interview selection but something about her application just grabbed all panel members. At interview she same across brilliantly, asked intelligent questions and was clearly enthusiastic for learning and developing. She got the job over 4 other candidates all working directly in the field - 2 of whom were internal. She went on to excel in the role and is now in a management position. I always bring up this example when asked the OP's question. It doesn't always work out this way, sometimes the direct experience is the deciding factor and sometimes, external factors lead us to think that there may not be a lot of fully qualified candidates out there at a certain point of time so the recruitment criteria is relaxed and we make clear that we would welcome applications from those looking to switch career path. Of course, we don't have a crystal ball so are sometimes surprised by the quality of applications we actually receive. I also have countless experience of someone looking absolutely perfect on paper and mentally preparing to give them the job but they turn out to be utterly useless, demonstrate a massive attitude problem or similar at interview.

OP, please take this as a positive. You were not necessarily there to make up numbers and the fact that you were offered an interview means that the recruiters believed you had the potential to offer a lot to this role. You've now received really positive feedback so just chalk this one up to experience and look ahead to the next opportunity which may well fall in your favour.

The number of times I was told I had interviewed brilliantly, done a really good application form, no they could not offer suggestions of improvement for the future but I did not have the necessary experience for the role drove me insane. You can see from my application what my qualifications and experience are- if I lack the necessary in either, don't waste my time and your time interviewing me, it's bloody ridiculous.

OP, please take this as a positive. You were not necessarily there to make up numbers and the fact that you were offered an interview means that the recruiters believed you had the potential to offer a lot to this role

This. Interviewing is almost as painful when you're the interviewer as when you're the candidate. Only a masochist would interview no-hopers for the sake of it.

That's what they always say OP, stock response.

John Lees who is an interview coach (written many good books, on amazon if you are interested) says it's code for 'we preferred someone else, get over it'

@Cocomarine

What if you’d been least experienced but the others had been awful? What if they had no other experienced candidates?

You took a punt, you got interview practice, you got good feedback.

You can choose to be positive about that, or not.

^^ this

You never know who else will be applying. Or how they will come across, even with loads of experience. Think of it as interview practice

really bubbly

Not the best of feedback there. What does that even mean? Quite a sexist term, that.

I was once invited to apply for a job and the first question I was asked in the interview was "Why did you apply for this job, you don't seem to be qualified?"

I imagine the job was open to all but out of those who applied, there was one or more who had experience in that field; if she/he ticked all the other boxes they would be given preference. If none of your fellow candidates had experience you'd have been in with a good chance.

It was not a wasted exercise, 'they' obviously liked you and will remember you. Who knows what will come up in the future and there is the possibility that the chosen one will not 'stick'.

You interviewed well- that's positive feedback, take it.

Someone else also interviewed well- however they also had more experience, which became the deciding factor.

To be fair, a lot of the time people seem to leave off the most relevant information from their CVs/application forms. I once interviewed someone who we had included as a bit of a wild card as their experience didn't seem to directly relate, and then when asking them about one area they started clarifying something else on their CV which was far more relevant than how they had framed it on the form and would have made them the front runner if it had been properly explained.

I've been on a lot of recruitment panels, and there are two levels: appointable, i.e. would we offer this person the role if we had no other suitable applicants, do they meet the minimum criteria, and then the ranking of appointable candidates. In two recruitments we've gone back to the second choice person because the first choice didn't work out, in some panels we've only deemed one person as appoint-able, and if they had said no we would have re-advertised, in others 4 out of 5 people we interviewed were appointable, the first and second turned the job down and the third choice was a knock out and was promoted.

You never know how things will work out in an interview. In general, I interview, say, five people for a role and usually the people I would rank number 1 and 2 from the applications are 1 and 2 in the interviews, but there have been enough instances where the interview has completely changed my mind - the person seemed disinterested in the role, the organisation, their experience wasn't as directly relevant as they suggested - that I think interviews are really valuable.

At least there was a job: I was interviewed 2 weeks ago and after half an hour it became apparent that the role no longer exists. 🤷🏻‍♀️

They interviewed you because they saw something in your application that warranted further investigation. On the day, whatever that ‘something’ was wasn’t strong enough to get past the other people. But they wouldn’t have known that without actually interviewing all of you.

Because just because someone may have more experience, they can interview badly or come across as a nightmare to work with, or their references might not check out, etc. There will always be a favoured candidate at interview stage, but that person still doesn't get the job because something doesn't check out right. That's why it's still wise to apply for jobs even if you don't meet 100% of the criteria.

YABU how would they know the candidate pool until they came to review everyone and determine who they would and wouldn't interview. Interview experience, especially in a new area, is always a good thing to have anyway. Sorry you didn't get the job you want, but note points from the interview for next time.

Depends on the attitude of the interviewer. Some will always pick the most qualified regardless. I've turned up and clearly just been filler as the people appointed were the 2 who had the exams.

However I've also worked in a team who just wanted the right person and were happy to train that person if they found them. I've witnessed a highly qualified person crash and burn in interview, another look like she just wouldn't gel, while a very inexperienced candidate had put a lot of effort into her presentation and interview prep and clearly wanted the job more than anyone else. She got the job!

Completely depends on the manager and how they recruit.

Interviewing is almost as painful when you're the interviewer as when you're the candidate. Only a masochist would interview no-hopers for the sake of it.

This. I've done lots of interviews in my time. It's one of those things that you think is going to be fun and interesting before you do it. Then you find out it's really hard work and unbelievably time-consuming. Only idiots interview people for no reason.