AIBU to be confused about interview rejection reason

[amethyst69]

Had an interview yesterday for a role in a special school admin setting. I've worked in education admin for 15 years. Wasn't aware there was a task but tackled it well. Interview was tough- panel of 3 - but I answered fully and asked a couple of relevant questions at the end.

Called about 4 hrs later ' I've got good news and bad news. The good news is you passed the task element the bad news is we're not offering the post because you have no special school experience and didn't talk about the challenges faced in this area. All your exp is mainstream. Your interview was fantastic, you demonstrated the skills we need well however so well done'.

I didn't say much as I was pretty stumped. Not because I didn't get it - totally get it might be internal, might be better qualified. It was the reason. If they wanted that experience then why wasn't it stipulated? None of the questions were about challenges - I'd done my research and could have answered but wasn't asked.

Just found it a bit odd and would have preferred honesty.

Is it not obvious there are different needs in special education and if you didn’t have direct experience then you would need to highlight what transferable skills made you suitable for that position?

Maybe the experience wasn't firm requirement but they had another applicant who had both skills and experience, so they trump you

Sounds like you did really well OP, just keep an eye out for other posts

I'd read that feedback as they might have hired you but another candidate has special needs school experience so they've gone for them.

Oh there’s nothing worse than ‘you did brilliantly but…’ feedback.

My guess would be that they didn’t necessarily need that particular experience, there was someone else who had it and that tipped the balance in their favour. theres nothing else you could have done.

All you can do now is onwards and upwards to the next one, knowing you are coming across brilliantly.

It sounds like you did really well, but they already had someone they preferred lined up. They had to give you a reason, so they made up some shit.

Keep looking. You are obviously a good candidate, so a deserving employer is going to snap you up soon.

They mean you did a good interview, passed the test and demonstrated the skills they wanted, but lost out to someone who also did that but had experience of the environment. I'm not sure they were dishonest as the experience probably wasn't essential but faced with someone with it and someone without they went for someone with. That's the thing with a competitive process isn't it? Its not just about being good enough, you can tick all the boxes but still lose out to someone with a bit extra something.

They shouldn't have interviewed you in that case. Waste of everyone's time.

Thank you all for your lovely comments and support. Absolutely understand that they likely hired someone with that experience and there will be another job out there for me!

Do agree with this though! Putting it in essential or desirable criteria would have saved me an application

Sorry you didn’t get the job. It might be worth asking at the end of the interview when they ask if you have any questions:

• Based on our interview, is there anything that I can clear up or address?

• Is there any additional information I can provide to support my application?

Thank you thats great advice for the future

I think @Onabench has it - they didn't strictly need it, but if someone else they interviewed had it and everything else was equal, the other person will have just pipped you.

I disagree with others that it's wasting your time. Until everyone was interviewed, they wouldn't have known who else would apply. I done quite a lot of recruitment, and sometimes you'll get loads of fantastic candidates where several could do the job, and other times there will be very few who match even the essential criteria. Sometimes it's just down to who else has applied.

I think that's a really poor way of telling you that you didn't get the job. Sounds like they did a "shit sandwich" technique when really they should have just told you straight up that you didn't get the job before getting into the feedback.

I had a job rejection phonecall about have an hour ago.It sucks 💐

Sending hugs 🫂 it's not the best feeling but something that's meant for you is out there!!

As you say it probably went internal to their preferred colleague. I had an NHS admin interview once and didn't get it, their reasons being it went to someone with experience in safeguarding. They didn't ask any questions related to this and if they had I would have been able to tell them I have been DSL in an education setting previously (as stated on my application form) . Clearly they did not want to give me the chance over and above their colleague. It worked out for the best for me as I joined a different organisation and have worked my way up in a job I really enjoy.

I’m not sure they were saying it is a must, more basically telling you someone else had that experience but also you were unable to articulate the particular challenges they face. However had no one applied with experience in that arena, you’d maybe have got it.

I'm trying to think what the admin at our special school has to do that a regular school admin person couldn't do (or pick up in 5 mins)
And I can't really think of anything. It's the same job just a different type of school.

Fair enough she will hear different language and have to liaise with different specialists but realistically it's all admin based tasks.

I suppose she has to order things like special equipment but it's not rocket science.

🤨

The challenges will be pretty similar too - lack of funding, changes of government policy, increase in need for the provision, inability to recruit trained TA's and support staff........

OP, I have had this a number of times in the public sector, 'Fantastic interview, great interview, can't give you any feedback on how to improve, but you don't have experience in X and we really need someone with experience of X'. Even though I was completely explicit in my application that I did not have experience of X. Even to the point of having a header on my application saying 'X' and then writing underneath, ' I do not have experience of X'.

I think it is a public sector thing where they feel that have to interview a certain number of candidates so people like you and me are brought in as interview collateral damage so they can tell HR it was a fair and competitive interview process.

Not very fair on those of us who waste preparation time and hope (and annual leave) on interviews we don't have a chance of getting.

It is something I've seen with interviews at schools I've worked in where the post is known to be earmarked and it is poor practice. I always feel sorry for the people sat nervously waiting.

From the other side of this, it's really hard to give 'constructive' feedback to an unsuccessful candidate who ticked all the boxes and gave a very good interview and who you'd have employed without hesitation...if only candidate B hadn't turned up and blown you away. Because feedback can only be about the performance of the person you're giving it to, and you can't wax lyrical about someone else. I'd imagine they had nothing constructive for you, because on another day, without super duper experienced candidate B, you'd have got it. So there's nothing you need to do differently. It's just bad luck sometimes.

That's rubbish, why have interviews at all or just pick the top CV? At the start of interviews I usually have a candidate that looks best on paper they don't always get the job. I expect they had at least two candidates with CVs that met the criteria for interview that on the day presented at a similar level, when looking for a point of difference one with special school experience was more suited. But if the one with experience had in other ways interviewed badly they would have probably go the job.

It makes a lot of sense to keep criteria broad and encourage a decent number of applications. Men are said to think if they can do half of them they may as well apply, with women much less likely to apply unless they can do almost all.

I agree, but then the feedback should be "there was an applicant who had x experience who also performed well in interview. So that was why we offered the job to them, despite your excellent interview."

I think at least 50% of the time if you got great interview feedback but didn't get the job, the job was effectively someone else's from the start. This is particularly true in the public sector where "fairness" means everything goes out to advert even if there's a great internal candidate they're desperate to appoint. I once had the feedback that I was appointable, a close second etc; and later found out that they appointed someone who had been doing the job on a temporary basis for six months already. Such a waste of everyone's time in the name of "fairness".