Rejected applicants can ask to see interview notes

Even more Ho Ho, I'd already decided I didn't really want the job, esp when the interviewer confirmed my suspicions ie that they were actually looking for something I probably wouldn't have applied for in the first place except it was all so ring-fenced in psycho-babble the job decription appeared to be a lot more interesting than it actually was!

But I decided to do the interview anyway specifically because I'm severely lacking in recent interview practice on which I never got any feedback anyway, did I? And felt I'd replied as truthfully as poss (as far as I could with MY Readers Digest knowledge of it LOL) whilst not compromising my actual chances!

I can't actually contact the intervewer - I tried that first off!

The other thing I think is a bit unrealistic of anyone interviewing a person aged 58 and 3 quarters -- no way was I actually looking for a career at this age, are we? yes I'd like to do a fulfilling, useful job for the rest of my working life but it won't be 20 years will it? It might only be acouple of years or it might be 10 if i really liked it and didn't have to stress too much in post. Don't know, do I?? LOL - and even if I did - they aren't allowed to take that into account, are they now?

I interviewed for the same post over a three year period four times, each time I was unsuccessful. Each time I went back for "feedback" which was verbal. Each time I was told that "on the day you were pipped at the post by somebody who was just slightly better than you however I would employ you and there is nothing I would criticise about your interview".

The next time the position came out I started to apply and then withdrew my application because I already knew that somebody on a temporary contract in the department was applying. The manager emailed me and told me to think hard about my decision!

Jennifer with your situation with ME then it should come under reasonable adjustments, if pointed out before hand you may not have to take part in that sort of a test at all or the test may have to be modified to accomodate your disability. This is always difficult because I always think that you are putting people off before you even get a chance to get to interview! The bottom line is if a company are not sympathetic and prepared to follow the proper process then perhaps they are not the correct company to be working for.

Hear hear! I too have had the "more experience" jargon trotted out, even when the interviewer already told me during the interview that I had MORE experience than the other candidate!

I also had this when I was the ONLY candidate brought back for a second interview. During the 2nd interview I had to complete a questionnaire (not psychometric, just questions related to the job). I felt I knew the answers and had done well but was turned down although all other aspects of the interview went really well. I asked for feedback - given the "more experience" routine. I knew this couldn't be true for the reason given above. So I asked for copies of the interview notes and the questionnaire. No response. Asked again. Was grudgingly, and after a long wait, given a copy of the notes from the first interview (which were terrible by the way, very sparse and virtually no information). I asked again for a copy of the questionnaire, got "Sorry, the person who has it is on annual leave". Tried again when they were back, this time, "Sorry, she's off sick and we don't know when she'll be back". I gave up at that point which is I think what they were aiming for. After all, surely someone else would have access to the documents? What if she left, never to return? Someone would have to pick up her work. I felt I was fobbed off big style and all because they just could not be honest. I have done loads of interviewing myself and ALWAYS give constructive honest feedback when asked, making sure that the candidate is clear about the areas in which they did not do so well so that they know what to concentrate on for next time. That's all I want for myself too - is that so hard for employers?

Hi Jennifer,
As someone who has been involved with these things, and previously as an assessor, I can tell you that they are talking generalist rubbish. Tests, if properly put together and not just bought off the shelf, can be tailored to a clients needs rather like a contract made up of a selection of standard paragraphs - pick and mix! They should be able to tell you exactly what elements that they were looking for, what the expected outcomes would be for an ideal candidate, and how you rated against that criteria. The reply you got was generalist and appears to have been given by someone who has read a Readers Digest article on psychometric testing.

These tests I feel should be used as indicators as to what questions to ask someone at an interview and not as the decision making device. The tests are impersonal. The number of times that I have recommended an appointment that flew in the face of a test result and the person proved superb in post I've lost count of. Equally the number of people that others employed on the basis of a brilliant test result who have had to be released (often soon after appointment) I've also lost count of. As with many things in life a balance has to be struck.

Did you direct your penultimate comment to the interviewers?

Interestingly it was only Monday that I took up the case of someone with an absolutely superb and truthful CV who had been turned down for a Training Contract after failing the first test, no interview, nothing. When I spoke to a senior partner at the firm involved he acknowledged that if he'd had to take the test himself he too would have failed it - now what should that be telling the HR department of the firm concerned!

Ho ho ho!! - how about :-

"The reason you were unsuccessful was due to the answers you gave during
the suitability questionnaire. This was a psychometric test and
unfortunately we cannot determine which answers failed to meet our
recruitment criteria. We can tell you that the test assessed you for a
Clerical role that includes repetitive tasks and your answers did not
deem you suitable for this type of work."

They're already doing it !!!!!!

Surely, even being an Outward Bound Instructor or a Doctor or an Airline Pilot involves some repetition - can anyone think of any job in the world that doesn't? - so does that make this particular applicant totally Unemployable then?

As it's actually ME we're talking about in this case, I'd be jolly interested in your responses!!

How many of us have "gone through the motions" of an interview knowing full well that the job was already gone and the interview process was just to justify proceedure. Somebody knows somebody, etc. I was told once when going for feed back "well we didn't get the impretion you were very interested in the job"! Having been specifically asked by the manager to apply for the post. I then found out it went to that persons mate and why would I have bothered if I was not interested??

There will always be ways for some to get round interview notes unless there is an external or complete impartial party as part of the process.

I absolutely agree with Janet, and have been in exactly the same position several times. It's almost as bad as being advised that you are over qualified or over experienced!
It will be interesting to see how 'honest' employers will be with the information given out to unsuccessful applicants in future - with a cynical head on, I believe that some will already be working out evasion strategies!

I think it is a victory for all those who have been told they failed because 'the other candidate had more experience'. It is such a catch-all phrase and seems to be used when interviewers don't really know what to say when you ask for feedback.
I was told this when applying for a post I had been doing temporarily, and then ended up training the person who got the job, so I still don't know what kind of experience they had that I didn't.
Interviewers will have to be a lot more precise in why one person is considered better for the job than another.