- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
I had an interview today where I THOUGHT I looked like an idiot about something
Posted on 3/4/24 at 11:45 pm
Posted on 3/4/24 at 11:45 pm
It was with 4 separate guys, 30 minutes each, back to back.
Three of them went great. With one of the guys, he corrected me when I referred to stolen identity fraud as 3rd party fraud. He seemed pretty disappointed that I didn't know the difference (this role is fraud-adjacent), and he spent the second half our time slot him explaining the difference between the two (which I already knew).
I was confused most of the day and embarrassed I got the two backwards, only to just now double check - turns out HE actually got the two backwards.
Is there a way I can communicate what happened to the recruiter, so I don't get dinged for this guys confusion? I assume each of them is providing feedback towards the final decision.
Three of them went great. With one of the guys, he corrected me when I referred to stolen identity fraud as 3rd party fraud. He seemed pretty disappointed that I didn't know the difference (this role is fraud-adjacent), and he spent the second half our time slot him explaining the difference between the two (which I already knew).
I was confused most of the day and embarrassed I got the two backwards, only to just now double check - turns out HE actually got the two backwards.
Is there a way I can communicate what happened to the recruiter, so I don't get dinged for this guys confusion? I assume each of them is providing feedback towards the final decision.
17
Posted on 3/4/24 at 11:49 pm to el duderino III
Sir, this is a Wendy's
And you got the the job!
And you got the the job!
This post was edited on 3/4/24 at 11:50 pm
Posted on 3/4/24 at 11:51 pm to el duderino III
quote:
Three of them went great. With one of the guys, he corrected me when I referred to stolen identity fraud as 3rd party fraud. He seemed pretty disappointed that I didn't know the difference (this role is fraud-adjacent), and he spent the second half our time slot him explaining the difference between the two (which I already knew).
When I was interviewing for my current job, I paid for interview training. One of the things they harped on was a tactic where an employer will intentionally do something to get a rise out of you to see if you're argumentative/can handle a wrong viewpoint when you know you're right.
Maybe they were trying to get a rise out of you?
Posted on 3/4/24 at 11:56 pm to HerkFlyer
That's possible, and good to know, but if he was just trying to get a rise out of me, I feel like he wouldn't have bothered to go into such depth explaining the difference between the two.
I think he legit just got them confused.
I think he legit just got them confused.
Posted on 3/5/24 at 12:01 am to HerkFlyer
quote:
a tactic where an employer will intentionally do something to get a rise out of you to see if you're argumentative/can handle a wrong viewpoint when you know you're right.
Some of you work for shitty bosses and/or companies.
Posted on 3/5/24 at 12:09 am to Ghost of Colby
quote:
Some of you work for shitty bosses and/or companies.
My company didn't use this tactic on me. I do know they've used it on others though. I was just briefed to be prepared for it.
I'm not a company man by any stretch of the imagination, but i can see why they would use it to see if someone gets aggressive at the first sign of disagreement in a job interview. You have to play the game in an interview setting.
Posted on 3/5/24 at 1:28 am to el duderino III
quote:
el duderino III
Yeah I’m sure HE is the idiot here, no way it’s you duderino.
Posted on 3/5/24 at 1:31 am to el duderino III
At least you didn't introduce yourself and start crying.
Posted on 3/5/24 at 4:51 am to el duderino III
I interviewed for a programming position and during the interview I had to write a short code for a specific task.
I wrote the code but the interviewer, who is the head of the department, reviewed but didn’t run the code.
I got the job and about a month later, during a conversation, he told me I didn’t get the code right and it would error out. I knew it was correct so I wrote the code again then ran it. Sure enough the code ran without errors and produced the correct result.
He didn’t say anything or even make an acknowledgment.
Hated that job and left after a few months.
I wrote the code but the interviewer, who is the head of the department, reviewed but didn’t run the code.
I got the job and about a month later, during a conversation, he told me I didn’t get the code right and it would error out. I knew it was correct so I wrote the code again then ran it. Sure enough the code ran without errors and produced the correct result.
He didn’t say anything or even make an acknowledgment.
Hated that job and left after a few months.
Posted on 3/5/24 at 4:57 am to el duderino III
quote:
was with 4 separate guys, 30 minutes each, back to back.
All that work, you HAD to get it. I mean you clearly got it, but enough with the quadruple entendres.
Sorry, when on the OT….
This post was edited on 3/5/24 at 6:19 am
Posted on 3/5/24 at 4:59 am to el duderino III
quote:
Is there a way I can communicate what happened to the recruiter, so I don't get dinged for this guys confusion? I assume each of them is providing feedback towards the final decision.
get his email off of LinkedIn and make sure you tell him how wrong it was
Posted on 3/5/24 at 4:59 am to el duderino III
Now you have to frick his wife to reestablish dominance
Posted on 3/5/24 at 7:35 am to el duderino III
quote:
It was with 4 separate guys, 30 minutes each, back to back.
Posted on 3/5/24 at 7:35 am to LSUfan4444
quote:
get his email off of LinkedIn and make sure you tell him how wrong it was
I would get everyone's email who was conducting the interview and explain what happened. Sure, it may mean you don't get the job, but for someone to go out of their way to correct you for that long and (IMO) try to make you feel like shite, and then for them to be completely wrong when you were right...well that wouldn't sit well with me. So even though it may cost you the job, it would bother me enough to want to (have to) set the record straight).
Also, it's an outside shot, but for all you know, they may have wanted to hire you until you got that answer wrong. So letting them know you didn't may actually help you.
frick that guy. I can't stand when people go out of their way to make someone feel stupid when they are actually wrong themselves and the person they tried to make an arse out of was right.
Posted on 3/5/24 at 7:43 am to CocomoLSU
quote:
I would get everyone's email who was conducting the interview and explain what happened. Sure, it may mean you don't get the job, but for someone to go out of their way to correct you for that long and (IMO) try to make you feel like shite, and then for them to be completely wrong when you were right...well that wouldn't sit well with me. So even though it may cost you the job, it would bother me enough to want to (have to) set the record straight).
Also, it's an outside shot, but for all you know, they may have wanted to hire you until you got that answer wrong. So letting them know you didn't may actually help you.
frick that guy. I can't stand when people go out of their way to make someone feel stupid when they are actually wrong themselves and the person they tried to make an arse out of was right.
I hear you but I just dont see that ending well. But then again, maybe that would be for the best?
Posted on 3/5/24 at 7:44 am to CocomoLSU
quote:
I would get everyone's email who was conducting the interview and explain what happened.
"I was thinking about one of the items that came up with XXX when discussing fraud vs 3rd party abuse. It was still bugging me after the interview, so I went and found these resources confirming my original answer: link. I'd be curious if XXX would admit to being a pathetic headstrong moron frickstick and review these for our mutual understanding - this job sounds great and I hope the colloquial minutia of fraud won't prevent your consideration!
Sincerely,
theOT"
Posted on 3/5/24 at 7:50 am to msap9020
quote:
I hear you but I just dont see that ending well. But then again, maybe that would be for the best?
I assume it won't end well anyway, since on the surface it seems lime duderino didn't know something simple that is a requirement for the job.
IMO he does himself a disservice by not clarifying that he did, in fact, know the answer and got it right.
Posted on 3/5/24 at 7:51 am to wileyjones
quote:
"I was thinking about one of the items that came up with XXX when discussing fraud vs 3rd party abuse. It was still bugging me after the interview, so I went and found these resources confirming my original answer: link. I'd be curious if XXX would admit to being a pathetic headstrong moron frickstick and review these for our mutual understanding - this job sounds great and I hope the colloquial minutia of fraud won't prevent your consideration!
That's great.
But in all honesty, the first half of that is pretty well-worded and is similar to how I would approach it.
Posted on 3/5/24 at 7:56 am to el duderino III
If the interviewer truly was being an a-hole, and you try to correct him now, he’ll just lie and bury you.
Posted on 3/5/24 at 8:13 am to el duderino III
who cares if you are right, do you want to work for a company that makes you jump through crazy hoops and interview processes.
I once worked for a company that was fully remote and about a year after I was hired they started this "we are family" kick and even started interviewing the spouses before offering the job to someone. They wanted to make sure that the spouse was fully committed to the company as well
I once worked for a company that was fully remote and about a year after I was hired they started this "we are family" kick and even started interviewing the spouses before offering the job to someone. They wanted to make sure that the spouse was fully committed to the company as well
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News