5 ms·

I suspect that often the reason for not getting a job is simply that there were more qualified candidates than positions. In that case, there may be no reasons

• klyrs 7y ago
  I've been told not to provide reasons for liability concerns. I'm a teacher by nature and it's so incredibly frustrating on both sides, but I wanna keep my own job so I do what I'm told...
• ghaff 7y ago
  It's the same thing with speaking submissions for conferences, for example. Sure, sometimes submittals get flatout rejected because the abstract is incoherent, it's not an appropriate topic for the event, or it reads like a sales pitch. But far more aren't rejected so much as they're not accepted for any of a host of reasons. That said, providing explanations also invites arguments and hard feelings if they don't agree with your reasons or just think you're unfairly favoring someone else.
• samatman 7y ago
  This is certainly a common reason not to get a job. Anecdotally, I've never been given a reason for rejection, other than this one: I can't say they've always told me when it's the reason, for obvious reasons, but I can say it's the only reason that's ever been provided, and it's happened more than once.
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• mcguire 7y ago
  Well, it would be nice to know how others are more qualified so you can remedy the situation.
  • irrational 7y ago
    It may not be that they are more qualified. I was hired at a job and they told me afterwards that other applicants were more qualified, but those applicants lived in a different state, while I lived a few miles away, so they decided to go with me instead so they didn't have to deal with helping the other candidates move.
• pmiller2 7y ago
  That would be totally valid feedback if it were possible for the candidate to interpret it at face value. Given that effectively no companies provide substantive feedback, even if "there was a more qualified candidate" is the reason, any reasonable candidate is going to interpret that as "sorry, we can't tell you the reason."
  • mjevans 7y ago
    My theory is that companies tend to not have an actual process, or that if they do it still ends up in the bin of human biases that their process can't quantify. There are probably obvious things like "crash and burned on a whiteboard problem path-finding" or "requested more than was allocated for the position" (would be nice if possible compensation ranges were required in the posting); but past the obvious disqualifications (which candidates should get feedback on) there's that 'fits with the (a) team' phase. Having an 'exit value', even if generic / approved by legal, would be helpful for everyone including internal company metrics that might drive a better posting if the job isn't fulfilled.