To think this job interview was ridiculous. To think it had gone to someone internal.

[Miajonesssss]

So, i was invited to a job interview (teaching interview - primary). The email inviting me to the interview gave me a prepared question (to show how I would use blended learning) and said 4 more questions will be asked.

The school was half an hour away. I arrived and was greeted by the headteacher who told me the interview will only take 5 minutes due to covid so don't be worried if they cut the interview short.
I smiled and said that's fine (although on the inside I thought it was weird).

I had four people interview me and I was asking 4 questions which included the blended learning question. No safeguarding, scenario, curriculum, assessment etc. questions were asked.
The fifth question was just "are you still interested in the job?'

They then rang me 15 minutes after I left to tell me I was unsuccessful. I did not ask for feedback as I usually do as what can they feed back to me froma 5 minute interview?
I just said "okay that's fine. Thank you". Then there was an awkward silence on the phone as if expecting me to ask for feedback and then a 'okay bye'

AIBU that this was a complete time waster. I spent a lot of time preparing printouts for the blended learning question just for a 5 minute 'interview'?

I definitely think they already had someone else lined up.

Before l even read your post and just saw the heading, l knew it the job would have been at a school. Spent ages trying to get a job in a school and wasted hours on preparation etc only for it to go internally. Really winds me up - waste of everyone's time.

See, here's where people need to start just saying 'Five minutes? Are you wasting my time or what? It's internal, isn't it?'

@Fishfingersandwichplease

Before l even read your post and just saw the heading, l knew it the job would have been at a school. Spent ages trying to get a job in a school and wasted hours on preparation etc only for it to go internally. Really winds me up - waste of everyone's time.

I had exactly this. Went to so much effort with the application and interview process and knew I did well at interview. The children responded brilliantly to me (sounds as though I’m boasting but I was very confident I’d nailed it - probably the best interview I’ve ever done). I had everything they were looking for - P.E., music and maths specialisms.

After the interview they phoned and said, “you were fantastic. We would have loved to give you the post but we have someone who’s been doing the job as supply for 6 months and I’m afraid it really had to go to her as the children know her”. In other words, it had been decided long before I ever even applied.

I was amazed they admitted it so openly! But what a monumental waste of my time.

If it was a proper interview you could at least have put it down to experience and ask for feedback etc but they were really taking the mickey. Worse than internal candidates is when you hear that the school has asked an external candidate to apply. Might as well not turn up.

Had exactly the same - applied for 4 different posts over a period of 2 years (healthcare) on a Scottish island ...travelled for interview (pre-COVID) and was contacted 10-15 minutes after every interview with an apology that I was a fantastic candidate but pipped at the post by an internal candidate....No longer dream of relocating and now have a fab job in education on the mainland.
There is a better position waiting for you 😊

Realistically, it must have been more than 5 minutes if you had four interviewers and four questions including the blended learning one that you had prepared. Surely that prepared answer took almost five minutes? I'd have taken the opportunity to ask for feedback and then asked if there was an internal candidate.

@tectonicplates

I do find it weird that they phoned you to say you were unsuccessful, though. An email would be more normal.

In my experience, telephone calls are common in teacher recruitment.

I know of someone who successfully brought a race discrimination claim when he was shortlisted for interview but the interview only lasted a few minutes. He had an English sounding name and it was pretty clear that the interviewers were dismayed to see someone from an ethnic minority turn up. However, the person they appointed wasn't an internal candidate. When asked why the interview was so short, they couldn't produce any explanation.

It might just be worth getting this school worried by asking them to prove that their reasons weren't discriminatory.

Better than having to go in to teach a lesson or for a half day when they have no intention of employing you. But still very shit :-/

Sorry OP. Just voted 'YABU' while scrolling! But obviously don't think you are!!

@Daisymaze

I hate this stuff, but often their hands are tied, they have to follow the procedures even though it's really kind of pointless.

Their hands aren't tied, they could actually interview those shortlisted along with the person they have earmarked for the job. If the internal/known candidate is the best of the bunch then they will get the job no problem, if someone else outperforms them at interview then the school gets someone better. I know it's not that simple and just because someone interviews well it doesn't mean they are neccessarily better at the job, but what a waste of everyone's time.

They could, and maybe that would be better.

Though I tend to think that if there is a reasonable internal candidate, people often feel ethically that they should choose them rather than someone external. And I don't think that's an unreasonable POV.

In general regulations about hiring for publicly funded jobs can cause more problems than they really ought to.

This is such a waste of time and money (recruitment is very expensive!). I understand it's to stop nepotism and to give everyone an equal chance. But they could conduct a formal interview of the internal candidate first and ensure that they met a minimum standard, appointing them if they do. They would only need to conduct a formal interview process if they didn't, thus potentially saving a lot of wasted effort and cost to the unsuccessful candidates and the public sector.

Sometimes it doesn't work out the way you'd expected. I have twice been involved in interviews where there was an internal candidate we all thought would get the job but we wound up giving it to an external who outperformed them. Once we were right to have done so. Once I later wished we hadn't

I'd take the stance that I really wouldn't have wanted to work for them anyway given how they treat others - it wasn't kind. Their loss!

You have my sympathies OP. I had a similarly short interview once (not teaching). However, the call I got offered a different position that I had no experience in and for hours that didn't suit what I'd told them. The equivalent would be that they had offered you a dinner lady role instead. In my case, both positions were seasonal so not even a "foot in the door" situation. There was then a mass rejection email the week after on top, meaning they had weirdly singled me out.

Reading your post made me realise that they probably already had someone lined up so they secretly interviewed me for something I didn't even want! Complete waste of time. I wish it was legally required that job adverts mention if internal candidates are being considered.

I remember a teaching job I went for once where the Head came in at the beginning of the day and made a speech to all the candidates about how they weren't interested in qualifications and really wanted to find the person who fit right into their school ethos. It was clearly aimed directly at me (best qualifications on paper but sometimes got suspicion from Heads because I look overqualified and wasn't native to the region), and it became evident throughout the day that they had lined up their favourite candidate already, who was the least qualified of all of us. I really hate it. I wish schools wouldn't waste my time if they're not even open to the possibility of giving me the job. That's a whole day of cover I had to set and mark. Although in that particular case I was secretly glad because I really needed the job but I hated the school (by the end of the day, not beforehand!) and was happy not to have to make a difficult decision about whether or not to accept.

Teaching interviews are hideous - and frequently a waste of time, although I'd have been suspicious if they hadn't expected to see me actually teach a lesson.

I've been utterly pissed off in the past when it's become clear that there is myself (UPS3) and an NQT/trainee up for the post, particularly when it's obvious that they are wasting my time. My favourite feedback (some years ago) was when an embarrassed Deputy Head said, I don't know what to say to you - you were quite clearly the best person for the job. It's money.

At least he was honest. No other profession does this, to my knowledge. At no time do Consultant Surgeons go up for the same job as a trainee junior doctor. It's ridiculous.

Does sound like they were just box ticking as you suspect. It is annoying when this happens, however desirable the job.

Been to several of these in health care - both public and private.

Best feedback I had was from an HR bod, who I was friendly with outside of work. Apparently the recruiter had written 'Doesn't look like a hospital manager'. Now I'm someone who usually is at a loss for words in a live situation but the goddess was with me that day so was able to reply 'What you mean I don't have a penis?' She had the good grace to look embarrassed

That’s terrible practice from the school. I have been on the recruitment panel numerous times in a school, and never seen anything like this. Whether there are internal candidates or not, we have always given every candidate the same opportunities and experience. And it doesn’t always go to the internal candidate either - it goes to the best candidate. I’m sorry you had this experience.

Sorry to say but it sounds like they already had their candidate. Waste of time for you though. In my place of work the candidate is often lined up and the charade of advertising and interviewing still has to go ahead.

Probably true but this really gets my goat. It's really not fair to candidates. Imagine being unemployed and short on money and spending it to go for an interview you think you have a real chance at. Not to mention the emotional rollercoaster.. Either genuinely interview candidates along your preferred choice which means they have an equal chance of not getting the job - or - just hire the person you want and leave everyone else out if

It's not covid. I had a 90min face to face interview with a police force for a civilian role only yesterday in England.

I think you've probably guessed right regarding an internal candidate. It must be really common

I have been through this 3 times for teaching interviews where they already had someone in mind - it was devastating and really knocked my confidence at the time.

I’ve also been on the other end where I’ve had to apply and go up against other candidates in a temporary job that was becoming permanent and I ended up getting the job but the time and money it must have cost to advertise and do all the interviews when they could have just given it to me seems so stupid.

30 years ago, I went to an interview in the nearby city, during a period when jobs were hard to come by.

At the interview, they admitted at the end that I'd interviewed well, but they felt I was overqualified and would be off for a better job in a flash, but that they wanted to see why I'd applied for the job. I was unemployed at the time, having been made redundant, so applying for any jobs I felt I could do.

I actually (politely) complained about them wasting my time, and as I was unemployed at the time, a waste of the small amount of money I got in benefits. They gave me back my travel costs, I think I'd shamed them into doing so. Luckily, I got a job soon after.