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?!

Agree with PP, 'bubbly' is an insult, and a sexist one to boot.

You can say a lot on a CV however it is in the examples given at interview that someone shows if the CV matches up to what they have actually done. Also you have to look at team fit as well.

There are no numbers to be made up,no quota to be interviewed
If no suitable candidates apply no one is interviewed and post read readvertised
Op must have met min person specification eg RN to get the interview but lacked specific experience in that clinical area

I had this once. I was asked specifically to apply for a role, interviewed and received positive feedback during it. I didn't get the role and was told the last working day before Christmas (nice). I was just there to make up the numbers

YABU—that’s how interviews work, they didn’t say you didn’t meet minimum requirements, just that others overall had a better application than you, due to more experience. The less experienced candidate COULD still have won overall, if they had excellent everywhere else and the more experienced candidates didn’t do well otherwise. E.g. if they thought the others weren’t very traineable, didn’t fit their culture, didn’t click, etc.

So you had the possibility of getting it, it was not a waste of your time and you were an excellent candidate, just beaten to the post by someone similarly excellent who also had experience you don’t.

That’s great feedback—it means keep doing what you’re doing, and you will have success. Lots of entry level jobs are advertised and it’s perfectly possible for those without specific experience to get them, but it’s not the interviewers’ fault if someone also applies who already has experience in that specific field. They’re unlikely to take them JUST BEACUSE of that experience but of course it’s a plus.

To make up their quota of interviews, and they may not have found someone more experienced. They don't know this until they interview.
Perhaps if you recognise this as part of what happens in your industry just apply for jobs you do have the experience for.

Interviews are a personality contest. If you've got two candidates who measure up with the same appointable scores in an interview you choose the one you think you'll be able to work with. I think people underestimate this in the selection process. Yes, it's about what you know and your experience but also does that person have appointable qualities that fit the role? Do they have the right personality for the job?

Also - the hiring manager/Managers always have their own agendas in terms of the type of person they want for a specific role. Doesn't matter how good you are on paper/in person, if you don't fit their idea of the personality profile they want you won't get the job.

I was approached for a job a couple of weeks ago, I explained that I was only currently available on a Wednesday (it's quite normal to only do one day/week in my profession as a locum). Said fine. Went into London for the interview on the expensive morning train having first got DH to cancel a couple of meetings to take the children into school.

Got there, sat down and the first thing that they said was " we're looking for someone really flexible!" Utter waste of money and my time.

@FizzyGreenWater

To make up the numbers to tick the boxes.

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

This isnt the case at all. There are specific short listing criteria and usually a set number of candidates who meet the criteria will be intervieed. What if the OP was 3rd in scoring and the top 2 decided not to accept? It happens. People apply for jobs and dont take them, circumstances change. They want to fill the vacancy, therefore they will interview all the shortlisted candidates.

But they might not have been appointable? In which case you would have got it.

It’s the luck of the draw. DH was once invited to apply for a job. It had been advertised previously, he didn’t apply as he didn’t meet all the criteria. No one was appointed as no one met the criteria. His boss thought he could handle it. It was re-advertised, he applied, and wasn’t even interviewed as a lot of strong candidates applied the second time around. However, if no one else had met all the criteria he’d probably have been interviewed and might have been appointed. It just happened that for some reason the advert attracted more qualified people the second time. It sucks, but it’s not personal.

In my organisation (local government) we are obliged to interview anyone who meets the basic criteria. Then those people are ranked in order of their performance based on competency-based questions. But loads of times people drop out of the interviews or do terribly. So the fact that you were interviewed shows that you met their criteria.

You’re also interviewing than to a certain extent and a job that looks great in the advert may come across very differently at interview.

I’ve been interviewed for jobs that looked ideal, but when I got there, the ethos was wrong, or I didn’t think I’d fit, or I didn’t like the people. All kinds of things can change your mind. I’ve been offered jobs and turned them down. They’ll ask the next one on the matrix.

But interview experience is always useful.

If it’s an NHS interview you would have had to meet the person spec to get an interview. So you obviously met the essential criteria. And it’s all points based, whoever gets the most points gets the job. That’s it.

This is what is supposed to happen anyway, that not to say some Trusts don’t put the face that fits in nursing jobs, because they do.

It's good experience, you got feedback, someone better cake along. Just because someone encourages you to go for a job doesn't mean you'll get it. It means they think you could do it, but if someone else shines brighter on the day then tough.

@unmarkedbythat

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.

It really isnt though. The candidates with experience could have interviewed terribly and they would then consider a less experienced person who interviewed brilliantly with a mind to developing them. You have no idea how its going to go from the candidates side. People get so snarky about interviews when they dont get the job

I really hate that, it's completely unreasonable to waste people's time like that when interviewers know what they're looking for. I'd be annoyed too.

This happened to me once. It was a University role for which I was well qualified. Had to present to someone I've always admired and put huge amounts of effort into it. Didn't get the job and the feedback was utterly humiliating - said that the concept I presented wasn't viable, not qualified for the job etc. The person who got it was hugely overqualified and rolled out my concept a few months later. Rage inducing.

Sometimes they’re just padding the numbers.
But sometimes they see something in an application which is interesting/unique or shows potential even though that candidate may not have the experience level others do. They might interview that candidate and see how they interview, sometimes it might be that unfortunately they weren’t right for the role and the other candidates interviewed better, but other times they might interview extremely well and bring something else to the table.

It’s hard to say as there’s no hard and fast rule, but very much depends on what they’re looking for.

I have been the interviewer many many times and have often had the situation where a few candidates were appointable to the post, ultimately you can only appoint one person!
Take this as a positive - you may well have impressed more than others with experience, I have appointed inexperienced candidates over those who appeared on paper to be ideal!

Because it's not JUST about the experience. The ones with experience might have interviewed poorly, might have had the wrong attitude, or whatever.

But obviously one of them interviewed well AND had experience.

You can always try again :).

I work in the NHS.

If you scored enough on the selection to interview, then that is a great sign, it means you were someone they could consider for the post. I have literally been told by my manager that there was someone on paper she was sure would get my job (I'm not offended! I had no direct experience of my role when I went for it) and on the day she just didn't provide enough evidence at interview. It's not about 'liking someone' or 'making up the numbers'. We have very specific things we score on in interview and sometimes 'has more experience' is a crap shorthand for 'could demonstrate the things we need the postholder to be able to do' which is easier to do if you have done that post before. But not impossible.

I would suggest doing as much study around the area you're looking to go into as possible and having a look around the things the role entails and seeing what you have done that you can use as evidence that while you haven't done X specific thing, you have experience of the same skills when you did Y. For more clinically specialist things, the NHS E-Learning for health site is amazing and has loads of free modules and courses you can do that really underpin knowledge of all sorts of relevant things that you would never think anyone would write a course on!

Take it as a positive. If you scored highly enough to interview that is a good application. In the NHS nobody has time to interview people that they don't think could do the job.

YABU. Those with more experience may not have been suitable for the role in other ways, hence it makes sense to have a wide range of people.

I don't think it's a quota thing. I think that you might have had slightly less experience on paper but they interviewed you anyway in case something else about you was special enough to make up for it, whether it's personality, work ethic, suitability for the team etc. When they decided this wasn't the case, they told you it's because of the experience bit, because that's something more objective and professional than saying "well Sandra thought you just didn't seem right for the team" or "Mark said he just clicked with the other guy more" etc.

@MintyMabel

really bubbly

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

It makes me bristle when I see the word "bubbly" and yes, absolutely it is sexist. I would love to know even 1 male candidate ever being described as bubbly.

@RosieAnne123 to your first point

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.

If you enquire about a job for which you don't have direct experience, no matter how much they try to persuade you to attend the interview (hey, it's no skin off their nose after all), it's best to question in your own mind why you want to go. You are under no obligation to attend, you can put the phone down and decide there and then, nope I won't invest further time (or alternatively, yes I'll go for the interview experience, but I'm prepared for it to lead to nothing, if they do find someone with more job experience).

Some of this stuff is about one's own mindset and trying to set aside disappointment. Keep trying!

what my eldest DC is finding really difficult about job hunting, is the number of employers advertising entry level jobs but asking for the kind of experience that would take several years to acquire.

They seldom accept just a CV and cover letter but often have application forms with questions at max 500 words each. Often the questions overlap and repeat themselves and which I can't believe the company actually wants to wade through, given their boasts of how many applicants they have. Instead of being able to describe the skills/experience they do have. Then after extensive time spent on the application - the employer can't even be bothered to email back to let you know the outcome. Its not surprising that job seekers become depressed.