How would you answer these interview questions.

[montypythizzle]

You always say something positive to these questions.

Yes, I did that porker, but she did give me some bulk beef from her frezer.

 

[disappoint]

Could be worse...I had the following asked of me in an group interview once:

If you were stranded on a desert island what one item would you want?

I answered "a boat" and then the supervisor that asked the question told me that wasn't a valid answer so we spent about 10 minutes arguing over it.

The interview proceeded after that and went back around the table until the same woman asked me "If you were a tree what kind of tree would you be?"

I told her that was a stupid question and I wasn't wasting my time answering it. I got up and left the interview.

The next day I got a call offering me the job. This October I will have been there 13 years.

The person that interviewed me was gone less than a month after I was hired.

Hahaha, hilarious! The boat is not a valid answer because the premise is "if you were stranded" and you wouldn't be stranded if you had a boat. They were probably looking for an answer like satphone, so you can call for rescue. Probably to determine if you would think of calling for help or try to stick it out in a bad situation by yourself, or some such. To see if you're a team player and are willing to ask for help on a project if you need it. That's just a guess on my part. But yeah, stupid questions especially the tree one. I can't imagine why they would fire that person.

 

[JS80]

Hahaha, hilarious! The boat is not a valid answer because the premise is "if you were stranded" and you wouldn't be stranded if you had a boat. They were probably looking for an answer like satphone, so you can call for rescue. Probably to determine if you would think of calling for help or try to stick it out in a bad situation by yourself, or some such. To see if you're a team player and are willing to ask for help on a project if you need it. That's just a guess on my part. But yeah, stupid questions especially the tree one. I can't imagine why they would fire that person.

I would have asked if there are trees, and if yes, a rope.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

So a good friend of mine had an interview on friday, and he was asked some atypical interview questions. So I wanted to see how ATOT would answer them.

1. Describe a time you had a disagreement with a team member on a team project. What was the disgreement, and how was it resolved?

2. Describe a time when something didn't go as plan when working on a large project?

3. You are tasked with determining if a college run bookstore is opperating efficiently. What information would you gather to make this determination?

The first two if you are honest they might think you have problems working on projects or groups. But if youi claim those things never happen then they might think you are a liar, or have little experience.

Those are pretty typical interview questions. The main thing is that they show self-reflection and critical appraisal skills, as a proxy for actual competence. People are usually less likely to spot incompetencies or mistakes if they themselves are useless at something. So conversely, if you are good at what you do, you should have a wealth of situations where you thought you didn't do quite so great.

And the third question deals with your ability to think on your feet. They're pretty standard, to be honest.

 

[disappoint]

I would have asked if there are trees, and if yes, a rope.

To create a hammock of course. Not to merely "hang out", right?

 

[DaWhim]

atypical question? are you kidding? these are called behavioral questions.

 

[shiner]

Hahaha, hilarious! The boat is not a valid answer because the premise is "if you were stranded" and you wouldn't be stranded if you had a boat. They were probably looking for an answer like satphone, so you can call for rescue. Probably to determine if you would think of calling for help or try to stick it out in a bad situation by yourself, or some such. To see if you're a team player and are willing to ask for help on a project if you need it. That's just a guess on my part. But yeah, stupid questions especially the tree one. I can't imagine why they would fire that person.

Well she didn't limit the items I could "want" so I said a boat. In fact before I answered I asked "I can have anything I want?" and she said "yes" so I said a boat.

 

[Gibson486]

Nothing beats my Analog Devices interview....

I:"How do you make an oscillator in digital logic"

ME: You use an inverter.

I: "Wrong"

ME: **Dumb Founded look**

Next day in class during lecture.....

Professor: "So, as you can see, if you want to make an oscillator, you just need an inverter".

 

[Ancalagon44]

Those "Describe a situation where..." type questions are always HR questions, and always useless in that they encourage candidates to make up and/or distort answers. But then, its HR....

The best interviews I've had are the ones where HR is involved in setting the interview up, if that. Any further involvement by them screws things up.

EDIT:

Unfortunately, these HR monkeys are the gatekeepers (for most companies) and you have to deal with them to get through the door. Unless you're hand picked by your hiring manager to get your foot in the door, it behooves you to scratch the HR monkeys' backs.

I think this should be seen the other way around. Companies compete to hire the best candidates, so they need to evolve to stay competitive in the employment market. If I have to tell the agent to tell the company that I wont interview with them because I dont want to waste my time with an HR monkey, maybe they will change their tune? If everyone goes along with it, just because HR has delusions of grandeur, nothing will change.

 

[PingSpike]

If the minimal requirements include wasting my time thinking of fake answers to bullcrap HR questions, then I don't really feel like working for that company.

In fact, I've gotten to the point where I ask if the interviewer will be an engineer or not and I selectively choose who I will interview with that way. Its worked pretty well so far.

Interesting. Personally, I early on evolved to the point that I will willfully jump through whatever feces covered hoop has the biggest pile of cash and least amount of hassles on the other side!

 

[PingSpike]

Hahaha, hilarious! The boat is not a valid answer because the premise is "if you were stranded" and you wouldn't be stranded if you had a boat. They were probably looking for an answer like satphone, so you can call for rescue. Probably to determine if you would think of calling for help or try to stick it out in a bad situation by yourself, or some such. To see if you're a team player and are willing to ask for help on a project if you need it. That's just a guess on my part. But yeah, stupid questions especially the tree one. I can't imagine why they would fire that person.

If you're going to use the "stranded" argument, then a satphone is just as invalid as a boat.

And using a desert island survival situation as a proxy for how your work personality is sounds like a pretty idiotic way to gauge some one. There's nothing to do on a desert island but die if you can't get off it, making JS80's rope answer a pretty solid one.

 

[Gibson486]

Those "Describe a situation where..." type questions are always HR questions, and always useless in that they encourage candidates to make up and/or distort answers. But then, its HR....

The best interviews I've had are the ones where HR is involved in setting the interview up, if that. Any further involvement by them screws things up.

EDIT:


I think this should be seen the other way around. Companies compete to hire the best candidates, so they need to evolve to stay competitive in the employment market. If I have to tell the agent to tell the company that I wont interview with them because I dont want to waste my time with an HR monkey, maybe they will change their tune? If everyone goes along with it, just because HR has delusions of grandeur, nothing will change.

Grasshopper, you have ALOT to learn.

 

[Ancalagon44]

Grasshopper, you have ALOT to learn.

Ah, no. I've had enough experience in the job market to know what HR is and isnt good for. One of the things it is not good for is deciding whether or not to employ a candidate. Backgrounds checks yes, interview guidelines yes, interviews and interview questions definitely hell no.

They have no idea what we even do, what skills we require, or good ways to find out about other skills such as people skills, time management skills, etc. Those "give a scenario where" questions are completely valueless. Unless you have a good reason why they are valuable?

 

[JS80]

Those "Describe a situation where..." type questions are always HR questions, and always useless in that they encourage candidates to make up and/or distort answers. But then, its HR....

The best interviews I've had are the ones where HR is involved in setting the interview up, if that. Any further involvement by them screws things up.

EDIT:


I think this should be seen the other way around. Companies compete to hire the best candidates, so they need to evolve to stay competitive in the employment market. If I have to tell the agent to tell the company that I wont interview with them because I dont want to waste my time with an HR monkey, maybe they will change their tune? If everyone goes along with it, just because HR has delusions of grandeur, nothing will change.

Unfortunately that's now how the corporate recruiting process works. The hiring manager does not see your resume until the recruiter/HR person forwards it to him, and they will not pass your resume through if you tell them you don't have time to deal with HR lol.

 

[ModerateRepZero]

those aren't really atypical from my experience, stupid questions though I agree

They should just ask "Are you going to flip out and punch people if they don't agree with you?"

The fact that I have solid work history and good references should show that I'm not a crazy person

- That hypothetical question is really a stupidity test...only the really dumb (and honest) people will admit to violent tendencies, just as only "special" criminals will admit to having committed a different crime as their alibi.

- Congrats, you're as solid and reliable as a robot. But what separates *you* from other people. It's like Harvard admissions officers assembling a freshman class. It's a given that 90-95% of the people who apply are capable of doing well at Harvard (or any other elite college for that matter). But they want a reason to pick you over someone equally capable and talented; the fact that you're indistinguishable isn't something in your favor....

 

[Ancalagon44]

Unfortunately that's now how the corporate recruiting process works. The hiring manager does not see your resume until the recruiter/HR person forwards it to him, and they will not pass your resume through if you tell them you don't have time to deal with HR lol.

It depends on the corporate. In most cases, the recruiter deals directly with the hiring manager, who liases with HR only as far as background checks go. Lets face it, the hiring manager is the only person qualified to evaluate CVs. I would hope that no corporate has an HR monkey evaluate technical CVs.

Recruiters must of course examine CVs, and some of them share the same problems with HR - namely that they lack specific knowledge about the field they are recruiting for.


Besides, my point was not that we should have nothing to do with HR, just that HR should not interview candidates. Thats all. I'm not saying they should not be involved - they should - but that in some cases they are involved too much.

And my point still stands - if every candidate refused to deal with HR, the corporate would be forced to involve HR in some other way. I know this is not realistic or likely to occur. Most people looking for work tend to scrape and bow to increase their chances of getting a job, and very few (if any) would turn down a job opportunity due to HR, annoying though it may be.

Despite that, in my experience with interviews, HR really adds no value. Interview design is a difficult thing to achieve, I'm sure most of us can list our bad experiences. Mine have been:

1. Lack of timely feedback. Makes me think the company is too lazy or disorganized to get back to me, and therefore not a good environment to work for. Yes, they want to interview other candidates, that does not mean it should be difficult to let me know that.
2. Wanting me to do a technical exam with no introduction to the company or the role. Not adding the personal touch loses huge points in my book.