|
|
Post by uthacalthing on Nov 19, 2024 16:22:49 GMT
The trick is to always be honest in writing. If you can't even get an interview based on your actual qualifications, then you won't cut it in the job.
Now at the interview stage, you can embellish.
|
|
ricmk
Lib Dem
Posts: 2,615 
|
Post by ricmk on Nov 19, 2024 22:21:27 GMT
The trick is to always be honest in writing. If you can't even get an interview based on your actual qualifications, then you won't cut it in the job. Now at the interview stage, you can embellish. Truth in that, but for a very different reason. We recruited recently, and in our field we have candidates who've got AI to write a personal statement, based on the person spec + role description. So there we are, with people who claim they are experienced in the specific skills / systems we're looking for (and not really expecting.) There's no way we can deny an interview on what they claim they know. But we came up with a genuinely tough practical test as part of the interview - essentially giving them an hour to solve our current live problem that we'd been working on for weeks. (The candidate who pretty much cracked it got the job.) A cynic might say that was equivalent to getting some free consultancy. I couldn't possibly comment.... But to see the look of horror on the other candidates faces when they realised their bluff was being called and we then asked about why they hadn't shown the skills their statements talked about. Priceless. |
|
|
|
Post by iainbhx on Nov 19, 2024 22:56:04 GMT
Basically she's tried to big herself up on LinkedIn. It's not a resigning offence. It just makes her look like another LinkedIn poseur. Isn't that kinda the whole purpose of LinkedIn, or at least common practice by those that use it... LinkedIn - For sociopaths by sociopaths. |
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,774
|
Post by john07 on Nov 20, 2024 2:08:15 GMT
The trick is to always be honest in writing. If you can't even get an interview based on your actual qualifications, then you won't cut it in the job. Now at the interview stage, you can embellish. That sounds like a load of bollox. I cite ‘Doctor’ Gillian McKeith as evidence! |
|
|
|
Post by uthacalthing on Nov 20, 2024 18:17:42 GMT
we came up with a genuinely tough practical test as part of the interview - essentially giving them an hour to solve our current live problem that we'd been working on for weeks. (The candidate who pretty much cracked it got the job.) A cynic might say that was equivalent to getting some free consultancy. I couldn't possibly comment.... But to see the look of horror on the other candidates faces when they realised their bluff was being called and we then asked about why they hadn't shown the skills their statements talked about. Priceless. Like and exalt does not cover this. I bow at your feet. |
|
|
|
Post by iainbhx on Nov 20, 2024 22:18:43 GMT
But we came up with a genuinely tough practical test as part of the interview - essentially giving them an hour to solve our current live problem that we'd been working on for weeks. (The candidate who pretty much cracked it got the job.) A cynic might say that was equivalent to getting some free consultancy. I couldn't possibly comment.... But to see the look of horror on the other candidates faces when they realised their bluff was being called and we then asked about why they hadn't shown the skills their statements talked about. Priceless. I've been acting as a hiring manager for about 25 years now and I have an evil little technical test on SQL, there's 20 questions and you need to get 11 out of 20 minimum to get a chance of an interview afterwards, you will get an interview if you get 14. Only one person has ever got 20 and yes, we hired him. It should take 30 minutes, but I allow 40 minutes these days and an hour if the person has requirements. It starts off with some easy confidence boosters and gets harder/more obscure ending up with the once very obscure (not so much now with modern Data Warehouses) MODEL clause. I've had people walk out before even seeing the technical test and I've had people walk out after the test and before it was marked never to be seen again. It's a great way of dealing with identikit CVs. Mind you, I once walked out after a technical test, it had several gotchas to avoid and to boot, the pc had been deliberately borked so that you had to fix the installation first. I remembered that I disliked the town where the job was, that this was a clearly a lowball salary and that anyone who set a test like that was likely to be a cnut and just walked out saying this isn't for me. Similarly, I once got through a third interview which was nit-picky as hell, didn't hear anything for three weeks and then they wanted a fourth interview and told them it really wasn't worth my time because I'd decided I didn't want to work there. The recruiting pimp went ballistic, like I care. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Nov 20, 2024 22:32:34 GMT
But we came up with a genuinely tough practical test as part of the interview - essentially giving them an hour to solve our current live problem that we'd been working on for weeks. (The candidate who pretty much cracked it got the job.) A cynic might say that was equivalent to getting some free consultancy. I couldn't possibly comment.... Sounds like a version of the Edward de Bono trick. Once he'd made his name from his 'Lateral thinking' book, he made a packet from major corporates for (a) consultancy (b) training events. And basically he'd give the people at the training events the problems which the firms hiring him for consultancy had asked him to solve. Nice work if you can get it, as they say. |
|
|
|
Post by carolus on Nov 20, 2024 22:51:07 GMT
The trick is to always be honest in writing. If you can't even get an interview based on your actual qualifications, then you won't cut it in the job. Now at the interview stage, you can embellish. Truth in that, but for a very different reason. We recruited recently, and in our field we have candidates who've got AI to write a personal statement, based on the person spec + role description. So there we are, with people who claim they are experienced in the specific skills / systems we're looking for (and not really expecting.) There's no way we can deny an interview on what they claim they know. But we came up with a genuinely tough practical test as part of the interview - essentially giving them an hour to solve our current live problem that we'd been working on for weeks. (The candidate who pretty much cracked it got the job.) A cynic might say that was equivalent to getting some free consultancy. I couldn't possibly comment.... But to see the look of horror on the other candidates faces when they realised their bluff was being called and we then asked about why they hadn't shown the skills their statements talked about. Priceless. I've found a good way to filter for the LLM enthusiasts is to add a few basic, slightly technical, and somewhat open ended questions to the application form. Legitimate candidates will typically answer in a sentence or two and say something sensible (or not ...). LLM users will give answers that sound okay, are a bit too long, and in cliche "cv-ese". The real trick, though, is that everyone using LLMs gives answers that look exactly the same (with one or two details changed to match their CV a bit better). That changes the problem from spotting LLM text to just noticing which candidates seem to have copied each other's homework. I'd estimate about 70% of applicants have been using them to apply to us - once identified it's straight in the bin. |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Nov 21, 2024 12:44:14 GMT
I was asked to help with selection for a role in Austria last year. We were amazed at how many people (mainly visa-hunters) attempt to respond to a job advert written in German in a German-language portal with an English language application. It really showed how people are using AI to bombard companies and do minimal checks.
|
|
