Preparing DD for job interviews after Uni

[Onedayinthesun]

My DD is looking to apply for Graduate schemes in the hope of securing one this year as she finishes her BSc.

We have researched the interview processes and assessments used when big companies hire Grads and I'm wondering if anyone has accessed help for their kids to prepare for attending these interviews.

I want her to have the best shot if she gets invited for any interviews but I'm worried about her inexperience, nerves may get the better of her.

Any ideas or recommendations, costs involved would be really appreciated ð???

My DD and I discussed how to write about her transferrable skills on her application forms. Lots of students do not always recognise the skills they have acquired such as leadership, working effectively with others, speaking and listening, meeting deadlines, presentation skills, time management, and lots more. Being able to draw upon experiences from a year abroad, relevant work experience or organisation of events at university is a plus because it shows the applicant is not one dimensional.

I also proof read her applications. DD has a tendency to write quite long, essay style, sentences. She has had to work on making her points more succinct and ensuring the reader only has to read the sentence once to understand what she is saying.

She attended lots of careers seminars and did the preparation for employment course offered by her university. She attended milk round events in her chosen career and, through work experience opportunities, she networked, networked and networked some more! In her field this is vital! I would say we have not helped in any other way except provide suitable clothing and support and advice if she has asked for it, as above.

I have interviewed students for graduate schemes on the milk round. What I needed from a student in order to justify my decision to recruit them was objective evidence that they had the qualities we were looking for. Most interviewers on established graduate recruitment schemes will be in a similar position, although of course you will also have interviewers for other employers working at the other end of the spectrum who just look for a face that fits. In the former case get your DD to sit down and really think what evidence she has that she can do the job given the information available, rather in the way she would constructing an argument for a piece of university work and the have a strategy for presenting it . As others have said it does not have to be directly relevant, it is about exhibiting the qualities in whatever opportunity was available so, it won't be less impressive for being in a holiday job rather than a directly relevant work experience organised by Daddy, or a self funded gap year rather than, as my DD just got offered a rather expensive work experience in America that we won't fund even though we could

And good interviewers are trained to take a student down a funnel of questioning to get at the specific details / detailed thinking that will give them the evidence they need so think through the details but not too much, you do need to show evidence you think on your feet too, spontaneity is important too.

In recent years there has been an active shift away from probing for some interviews depending on the employer/scheme - so don't rely on the interviewer asking for extra information because it may be that they are told not to as part of the process.

Look at the website thestudentroom for others who've attended assessment days. The forum has a lot of input from previous and aspiring attendees.

I help at our company assessment days and we LOVE reading up on the threads to see what they thought of us!

In addition to the excellent advice you've had here so far, Onedayinthesun, can I add this?

When your DD does her research on the company she is applying for, she should pay particular attention to what they say they are looking for, and ensure she's clear how she's going to demonstrate each point. McKinsey, for example, is completely explicit about what you need to show: personal impact, entrepreneurial drive, problem-solving skills, achievement and leadership skills. They explain what they mean by each of those and their interviews are designed to test whether someone can articulate credibly how they have those skills, by way of examples.
www.mckinsey.com/careers/join_us/what_we_look_for

Top tip in applying for these kinds of jobs: put your humility to one side and be ready to talk about what you did. Not what the team did. Not how the problem was solved in the passive tense. What you yourself did. It may feel awkward to be this direct, but your interviewer is trying to work out whether you have what it takes, not whether your team does. I've seen people get a tick for collaboration but fail the process because the interviewers genuinely didn't have enough information about the interviewee's own achievements to make a decision (and not for want of asking by the interviewer).

In some careers a holiday job is not relevant and unless you have really put in the effort to get the relevant experience, you may well struggle to get the job. Not all careers are the same and one tip is definitely to make sure what you do will be valued by the potential employer whether it is working in the local corner shop or doing half a dozen mini pupillages. Horses for courses.....

I disagree Milly. There are always a few candidates who have never had a job/just a handful of two week unofficial placements arranged via mum or dad's contacts. These candidates often struggle because they haven't got that relevant experience that comes with holding down a job - basic things like turning up on time, following instructions, delivering things that have been requested, doing tasks that are boring, unexciting or you don't like, working with people who are not like you or you don't like. Just having a job, almost without exception, helps build relevant skills.

I think most graduate employers have caught on to the fact that if they demand "relevant" work experience or jobs they rule out lots of good candidates because there are fewer opportunities to get this kind of experience for less socially mobile people (that's a pretty big one and often goes to the heart of a firm's values around meritocracy) but also rules out certain demographics (like parents who can't afford to take unpaid work placements or take time off their job that provides for their children to do a six week summer internship even if it is paid because they need that job when they go back) and people who have changed their mind about their career. I see lots of mature students, teachers, lawyers who can't get pupilages or training contracts for example. Diversity is generally considered to be very important to ensuring continuing commercial success.

As regards these "not relevant" jobs here are a few examples that disprove that notion:

Working in a shop dealing with customers gives lots of opportunities to use judgement or initiative and demonstrate customer service or client care skills.

Working as a diving instructor in a holiday result has opportunities to lead and develop others, show responsibility and an ability to ensure standards are maintained and regulations adhered to.

Selling ice creams on the sea front might have opportunities to show responsibility to work responsibly and alone, to show flexibility dealing with problems and the ability to see a job through from start to finish.

Exactly Spring.

I was expressly referring to the legal world which is why I mentioned mini pupilages. Of course work placements found by parents are of less use than having a job. Although I now loads of parents who have found the job too! I am not belittling anyone having a job and there are lots of skills that brings, as you have outlined. I also agree employers are wrong to rule lots of people out based on what is, essentially, parental income and opportunities in life. I completely agree with everything you say - for the majority of employment scenarios.

However, if you want a top career in law, you need to offer more. It is not down to what mum and dad can offer, although plenty on MN have fabulous connections in law and no doubt their offspring willgain from that. We have none whatsoever but have encouraged our DD to obtain the placements and now an internship she needs. She has alo volunteered extensively in two very challenging sectors, undertaking training for the roles. We cannot change the selection system, so we have to go along with it. I am well aware other employers are different, and so they should be. If you want to be a barrister, selling ice cream is not, sadly, going to get you very far.

I work in the industry and I say you are wrong Milly.

Milly is right. For law training contracts they really don't care about the experience working in a shop. They want relevant experience, usually summer placements. They assume you will turn up in time etc they are not assess ing you in those basics. Thousands apply for training contracts it's very competitive.
Obviously does not apply to op.

Yes that's also my experience Springtime. But what do I know? I only work for these employers doing the job and seeing behind the scenes at the objective and less objective criteria and how it is applied.

If we had somebody who had made no attempt to get relevant experience, who hadn't attempted to volunteer at the local advice centre or CAB or observed proceedings and another candidate who had (and both had a similar background) then the former would have the advantage of being able to draw on some more experience it is true. But the bit that would sway the firms I work with is the "made no attempt" bit because that demonstrates a lack of career motivation and that's a deal breaker.

If attempts had been made or there were reasons why someone hadn't taken those steps then we would want to know why and the outcome of that discussion would be important bit. I've seen candidates in the past who were Olympic athletes, carers, sole bread winner for their household, changed their mind about their career, been ill. We considered each circumstance and candidate's skills and abilities fairly before making decisions.

In every university I've worked at (research-intensive) the Careers Service advice to our students has always been: you need to have work experience on your CV. At one place, we had the Careers people talk to our First Years in their 2nd week of lectures -- in the long experience of experts in the Careers Service, students need to be thinking about, and planning towards, employability from the very start of their degrees.

Yes Milly is right. But I don't think nepotism helps. The students have to go through the usual channels and compete for vac schemes and mini pupillages these days and I think intervention by a parent would hinder not help.

Mine covered their backs by doing both - waitressing as well as vac schemes/ mini pupillages. Waitressing brought in some cash....

This girl isn't doing law (law firms recruit from their paid vacation placements which you do well before your final year at university). My older 3 had no help from me but apart from the advice above and depending where she is applying:-

1. Don't under estimate the importance of received pronunciation and ability to talk without ums and ahs, smiling, quick answers, appearing bright.

Go on you tube and look at how people are in the jobs you want to do.

1. Make sure you wear the right kind of clothes for the relevant job.

My older daughter (law) worked summers for a holiday company ( sailing Antigua, Greece etc) and also a bit of law, not much. The other one (law) had a few waitress type jobs and some work experience - law. Post man graduate son - not sure he's a great example as his driv ing licence obtained at age 17 is his most useful qualification and ability to carry heavy bags, get up at 5am and walk all day.

I agree the need to show you have experience of working is very important. Even a job in McDonalds shows you can work in a team under pressure in a boring task and deal with the general public. There is a real difference in attitude between graduates who have worked and those who haven't and all things being equal I'll take the one with work experience.

As an interviewer what I was looking for was evidence that a candidate had the qualities that were identified as needed for the jobs available within our graduate scheme. Things like maturity, interpersonal skills, intellectual ability, imagination. It was not so much the context in which they had manifested them as the way in which they were manifested it. Sadly if they couldn't provide that evidence, however good we thought they might be, we could not make the case for recruiting them over other candidates to the Chairman of the recruitment process.

We did deviate just the once for a candidate who had sailed through a fairly disadvantaged background with great results and an evident ability to charm the birds from the trees but had never worked a day in his life and admitted to us that getting As hadn't taken much effort either. Intellectually at least we had more than enough evidence though and he is now on the Board we won't go into his record on breaking hearts so hasn't messed with the statistics on the success of the process.......

Lotus - re law firms hiring from their paid vac schemes well before final year - this is obviously the case for a lot of students but IME of City firms most people are not hired via the vac schemes. It seems to be the smaller American firms who predominantly hire that way. We do give out plenty of offers to good vac students but also ensure we save plenty of spaces for graduates who are applying directly for the training contracts. Just worth mentioning in case people think you have to get into law during university or the chance is gone, and thats not the case.

Don't under estimate the importance of received pronunciation.

So we'll forget about equal ops shall we?

Nobody from the regions/Scotland/Wales, the Indian subcontinent/ Australia/America/Canada/Jamaica/the rest of the EU need apply.

Home Counties only types please!