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.

I think they expected you to demonstrate an understanding of the different challenges you might face, in lieu of experience in the sector. On another day, when no one had that experience, you might have got it.

Or it might be flannel because they don't think you'll gel with the team, or something. They can't say you did brilliantly but we didn't like you.

Fwiw, our HR advisors say it's best not to give feedback and save yourself the hassle.

It's not rubbish. If you can't take someone because they didn't have the relevant experience and their CV didn't show the relevant experience it's twatty behaviour to waste everyone's time. The feedback should have been we really liked your CV even though some relevant experience was missing, however someone interviewed who matched in all areas.

It is different though. Interactions with parents and students will be completely different, funding is different, behaviour management is different, the timing of and processes around intake are different. Nothing you can't deal with I'm sure, but they wanted to know you'd thought about it.

I actually got the same question when I interviewed for an admin job in a grammar school, and my own answer made me realise I really didn't want the job 🤣

Its not that they "can't" take someone without the experience, it's that this time they had an equally strong candidate who did have the experience. That candidate might have interviewed terribly and OP could have demonstrated that she had a really good understanding, despite the lack of experience, but they didn't.

It's unfair to give this lack of specific experience as the reason for not giving you the role when this wasn't specified in the desirable or essential criteria.

They aren't supposed to randomly make up other criteria, they are supposed to judge candidates against the set items.

They should have been more vague in their feedback I think

I should have been clearer as the post was was project manager for a group of schools so no student contact. More governance, compliance, research. Had it been student facing then definitely lots of differences

I feel for you as had a similar experience where I didn’t get offered a job. The feedback was basically that I hadn’t experience at that level but they knew that from my application which was a little bit frustrating but I put it down to experience x

Because it likely isn’t essential or even necessarily desirable but if all candidates are equal you start looking beyond what you requested. I work in a school and was offered the job due to experience working for the LA - not specified but it was something the others didn’t have so they went with it.

There are significant difference between the challenges facing specialist and mainstream. You’ve not touched on the main ones.

Unless you’re offsite there will be student contact.

If the shortlisting and interview process for schools is anything like local government (which I work in) - it is actually very prescriptive and a series of ticking boxes and having to ask exactly the same question etc.. from everyone. In an effort to remove interviewer bias and be completely transparent etc…. I get it - but it makes it really hard because we literally can’t employ someone who didn’t tick a particular box in the interview or app form or if someone else ‘scored’ more in the box (even if we liked the person better) - it’s a bit of a game really - sounds like they really liked you but someone else got a bigger score so they had to go with them. Onward and upward I guess!

I’ve had similar feedback before and it is very frustrating. You cannot account for someone else’s better experience/knowledge; you can only do your best. I have, however, just been offered a really good job - better than any I’ve tried for before - and I’m sure you will too. The right one is out there x

Presumably your experience was on your CV/application form?

If so, they were wankers for interviewing you and wasting your time. Why would they interview someone for a job, who is barred from the position by this factor? Probably they were box ticking and then gave it to someone who had some sort of foot in the door.

They haven’t said she was barred from the position 😂

I’d read that as you ‘came 2nd’ and would have been offered the role but were trumped my someone with more relevant experience

I'm sorry you didn't get the job. As you know, in schools it's important that teams work well together. It's possible they just didn't feel you'd fit as well into the team as others they interviewed. They're obviously not going to tell you that though.

Keep your chin up, that might not have been a good fit but your next one may!