A Day Out in London

Good afternoon friends, its been a while.

After a good six months out of the game, I've decided to come back to my blog. I'm not entirely sure what caused me to stop in the first place, perhaps a general summer malaise and a bad case of writer's block, but I return. I would like to say triumphant, however that is unfortunately not exactly the case. Not to say that Autumn 2012 through Winter 2013 has been an unmitigated disaster but the fact remains I'm still searching for a graduate job.

To give you a brief update of my circumstances and general activities these past months: I'm still working at a nearby theme park for close to minimum wage; I've recently started as an education volunteer at a local charitable organisation and I also ventured to London for a rare interview in December. I'll begin my return to the blogosphere by discussing the latter, which turned out to be a particularly surreal experience.

It was an interview for a role as a trainee researcher with a TV production company. I'd applied for the job in March on a whim, without having any experience in television or having shown any previous inclination to work in the media. I'd long since given up on hearing anything back when, out of the blue, I received an email informing me I'd been shortlisted. It was in fact so much of a surprise that I had to go back and double check precisely what I had been shortlisted for. But without further ado, I accepted their offer of an interview and set about preparing. I researched the company, their programmes and the role of a TV researcher in general, and when it was time to journey to London I felt thoroughly prepared.

I arrived on a cold, crisp December morning and made my way to the production company's trendy central London offices. Feeling a little awkward, apparently being the only person in the building wearing a suit (probably should have anticipated that), I introduced myself at reception and was given a pop culture questionnaire and a newspaper exercise to complete prior to the main event. Easy peasy - weekly attendance at my local pub quiz had prepared me well and I knew all but one of the answers (knowledge of the US X-Factor let me down!). The newspaper exercise required me to select two items from the papers to form the basis of discussion on a morning panel show; again, not too tough so I set about sourcing one serious and one light-hearted story. So far, so good. Then came the interview...

Feeling a little nervous, I made my best attempt at striding confidently into the interview room, remembering to maintain eye contact and give a firm handshake. I didn't trip over, so this felt like an early success. The questions started innocuously enough: 'Why did you apply? What can you bring to the role? What do you know of the company?' Earlier prepared facts at the ready, I set about responding and gave some fairly decent answers. Then things took a turn for the worse: 'What do you like watching on TV? What's the first thing you turn to when you put the tele on?' Now, it's safe to say that my television viewing habits are fairly mundane: I like the news; I like documentaries; I like panel shows and awkward comedy. Knowing full well that said company produced almost solely light entertainment programming, I felt I was in a pickle. I decided the truth was the best option, hoping to steer discussion away from my viewing habits and back to my skills and experience. This was wishful thinking. I was grilled further: 'What do you watch on a Thursday night?' I was beginning to feel a little sheepish as I foolishly revealed my love of Question Time. By the time I was eventually released, I was flustered but felt sure that they wouldn't base the decision solely on my TV viewing habits. I always had my excellent pop culture quiz scores to fall back on!

As it turns out, I didn't get the job - or at least I don't think I have. They said I'd hear back by the end of the year; I'm still waiting. Then again, seeing as it took them 6 months to respond to my application, maybe I'll be in for a nice surprise come August. Frustrating as it is not to hear back (particularly considering the hefty rail fare!), the experience has clarified one thing for me: I really don't think I'm suited to working in television. In turn, this has made me focus more clearly on what I do want. Since New Year I've been focusing more on applying solely for political research jobs.

This brings me neatly on to my next subject - that of  the political internship, a topic on which I have previously poured scorn. I'm beginning to think I might need to sell my soul...

More to come.

(In)Competence

Its been almost a fortnight since my last instalment and in case any of you were wondering, I remain in search of graduate employment. However, despite my silence on the blogosphere, I have at least some positive news having had a telephone interview for the graduate scheme of an unnamed (cough) entertainments company. This being only the first stage in a long and arduous selection process, I'm not hugely optimistic of a positive outcome but at least they haven't thrown my application in the dustbin just yet...

The telephone interview took a very specific format and has prompted me to discuss a particular aspect of the graduate recruitment process: competene based questioning. With many large companies outsourcing the early stages of their selection process to recruitment consultants, the questions posed in initial telephone interviews are often vague and unspecific. They ask not about a candidate's suitability for a specific role, but instead ask for examples of certain key competencies, from leadership and teamwork to creativity and lateral thinking.

While I feel I am perfectly capable of demonstrating the majority of these faculties in given situations, I am frankly terrible at thinking of impressive and original examples, especially when prompted on the spot. No matter how many of these competencies I attempt to identify in advance and try to prepare for, I am invariably stumped by one or two I have neglected. In my case, this usually results in me bumbling my way through a fallacious and long-winded story loosely based on a distant past experience. In a recent unsuccessful interview, I created a largely fictitious (but very dramatic) tale of a teammate breaking an ankle on my gold Duke of Edinburgh's expedition as an example of my exceptional teamwork skills! Otherwise, I invariably resort to generic, unspecific and thoroughly unimpressive examples from my academic career which seem to go down like a lead balloon. Employers want substance it seems.

There is very little to stop candidates from simply making up examples of particular competencies. I have an old friend (who I hope is reading) that shamelessly added a charity climb of Kilimanjaro to his CV! It seems highly unlikely that any employer would take the time and effort to identify the veracity of a candidate's claims. So what are employers actually testing? This kind of questioning is just another meaningless way of filtering out a few more candidates, specifically those that lack the creativity or sheer gumption of others.

It is particularly frustrating to pass an initial screening process only to fall at the first significant hurdle, before you are given an opportunity to talk about the job or even company for which you have applied to work. It's just another one of the many hoops that graduates must jump through to land that first job. While lying is likely to land you in hot water further down the line, we've all been tempted to use a little creative licence to bolster our chances. For many of us, the reality of our day to day existence isn't quite enough to spark the interest of an employer searching for that 'unique' and 'special' candidate. Selling yourself is the name of the game and unfortunately it is a shameless and cynical process.

If any of those reading would like to share some of the tales you've told at interview that demonstrate what a talented person you are then I'd love to hear them.

Thanks once again for reading and don't forget to comment below...

'We regret to inform you that your application has been unsuccessful...'

It has been seven months now since leaving university and my search for graduate employment has delivered a rather harsh dose of reality. In September 2011, fresh after handing in my dissertation, I was full of optimism - I was 22 years old, held a first class degree and barring a disaster would soon have an MA. The job market was surely my oyster...

Then came the application forms.

It's not that I'm bitter or anything (I am bitter) but the hours I have spent filling out reams of personal information and answering banal questions on my team building and problem solving credentials could have been better spent.

What particularly sticks in the throat is that on more than one occasion I have received an automated rejection only a few hours after submitting my application in the first place. I can only assume that some aspect of my character has been deemed unworthy by the many filters designed to separate the men from the chaff (a favourite mixed metaphor of mine...).

To add insult to injury, because many graduate schemes (as the rejection emails do not hesitate to tell me) are so very popular, firms are unable to provide any feedback whatsoever. I can't help but feel taken for a ride - if I can spend 3 hours filling out a tediously dull application form, then surely the computer that rejected me can let me know on what pre-conditioned criteria I was filtered out?

Applicants deserve a level of transparency. If, for instance, a firm is not looking to recruit history graduates, make this clear in the job description. In a job market that is tougher than ever, to spend my precious days off filling out forms for jobs that I subsequently discover I had no chance of getting is somewhat galling.

Perhaps I am doing recruiters a disservice, perhaps they are indeed ruthlessly efficient in their selection of candidates. Then again, submitting an application at 11pm and receiving a rejection at 5am the following morning may suggest otherwise...

Rant over.