I feel like these are the real issues - I can’t tell how much of OP is meant to be a joke … “You forget to check the website and you miss the time”. I mean, that’s on you. Also it’s often easy to blag the magic words an interviewer wants to hear, the real danger is that the job is NOT as advertised.
The number of interviews I used to sit in on, and wonder WTF the interviewer was thinking… One asked a service designer “if you were a type of cake, what would you be?”
One asked a service designer “if you were a type of cake, what would you be?”
“Cheesecake with chocolate frosting. Don’t ask me why, it’s confidential.” (stupid questions deserve stupid answers)
The only possible use I could imagine, was to test how people respond to irrelevant stupid questions, since that happens a lot in some workplaces. Do they get frustrated and make it awkward, or shrug it off politely.
Good point. So how would you say I did… was the frosting part too much? 😃
But really, I wonder if it’s also a neurodivergence test; in an actual interview setting, I’d probably tend to think about it seriously and answer sincerely, then follow up with details if prompted.
I would disagree, those issues are valid too. Why does every website needs its own account, phone number etc? I get so many spam calls when I start looking for a job because of this. Just e-mail me. I’m not going to check your website every day for 2 weeks just to see if you get back to me.
The spam calls also put less value on actually answering my phone, because half the time it is a spam call. Why does every recruiter need to call? Why does every site need a number when I just need one answer, yes or no. I have my CV, I have my skills on my CV, and with one reply I can send you a very short list of what I’m looking for in 2 minutes, not every job needs a 30 minute phone conversation only for the recruiter to decide they have nothing for me.
And yes, there are magic words the interviewer wants to hear as well. As someone who sometimes struggles in higher pressure situations (which my field does not require at all btw), and also struggles with using the correct vocabulary or recalling random phrases and key words they want to hear, it’s frustrating to no end.
Honestly, I feel this should have all been streamlined by now, especially when I’ve already worked somewhere for years and my company has been satisfied with my performance - why is this not enough? Why can’t this be quantified somehow? An alternative which very few companies do is give me a technical/practical interview that’s actually like the job as advertised. Much easier for remote roles, but can be done in person too. Let me do the job, show you I can do the job, and then you decide to hire me based on that.
I do relate to your last point though, the amount of unrelated riddles or whatever get asked to ‘see how I think’ or something is ridiculous. Even when I get the answers right, the interviewer themselves don’t seem sure. I don’t get it.
In my industry, practical interviews are very common, but they’re not always reliable. I can get as much from asking someone about their process and being talked through a case study they’ve chosen, as giving them a practical exercise to perform on the spot. I’d usually do both.
I’m not disagreeing with the overall inefficiency and frustration of the whole process, I’ve felt it on both sides. It’s messy - bad or overstretched HR teams, slow managers, unclear budgets, poor choice of tech platforms…