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.

'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.