What do you / don't you want to hear from a candidate in an interview?

[TLO]

As I've moved up in my company, I'm less involved in the hiring process for new employees.

I kind of miss it though. The good interviews. The bad ones. The absolute train wrecks.

Anyway, what are things you like to hear from candidates? What don't you want to hear people talk about?

[displacedinMN]

when we get past the dumb things interviewees say....we can talk about how stupid interviewers are and the pre-interview process in education...led by AI.

[|Zach|]

The job I hire for has a strange set of skills and people who on the surface who seem like not that great of a catch end up being amazing while really smart articulate people can struggle with it. I think I am honing in on the confluence of skills and how they can show themselves in the interview process but it can be tough. It gets a little better each round of interviews.

I remember when I was younger getting a summer college job the guy interviewing told me "I am going to tell you every bad thing about this job and convince you not to take it...if you are still interested then we can talk. And sure enough that is what he did. Never used the tactic but I am think about it 20 years later so it must of had some impact.

[|Zach|]

Originally Posted by PunkinDrublic

I used to work a lot of overnight security in college. Onetime I was interviewing for this job and the guy had a really thick accent and at one point asked me if I minded working security outside the whorehouse. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing and it sounded like the dream job until i figured out he was trying to say courthouse.

[|Zach|]

Originally Posted by Delano

I enjoy when an interview is like a conversation. I like when the questions come from both parties (and when the HR rep is quiet). I like seeing genuine passion from candidates.

I fully realize that I play as big a part in these things happening as the candidate. If I treat people like a number, it sets the bar low - no matter the interviewee.

Someone being more proactive in asking good questions is a massive plus.

[TinyEvel]

I've had an interview for creative marketing positions in a huge tech company.

Two different people asked me a total of three questions that were obviously from a list of questions.

Not until the end of the interview when I asked about the department structure did they say the role was not supervising anyone, even though the title was director.

Most of my answers to their canned questions included details about my leadership skills and experience, I would have reduced that had I known this was a 100% maker job and not leading and developing others.

I asked about their culture and how they interact. They literally didn't answer the question.

Next day the recruiter Calle me they were passing. No way would I have been happy there.

[DanT]

When I interview candidates for statistician positions, I like to include questions on basic statistical concepts, because I have learned through the years that there are degree-holding statisticians that don’t know these concepts well enough to explain them clearly and accurately, which makes them less effective for collaborative medical research given that they may be the team member expected to know and account for those concepts in a given setting. Some of the concepts I ask about are ones where it’s ok if the candidate doesn’t know, as there are some concepts that are more specific to a particular area of application and a well-trained person from a different statistical specialty could learn them on the job. For example, a mathematical statistician might have had little to no exposure to certain statistics used when evaluating clinical prediction models. But if a candidate doesn’t know general concepts well, like the definition of a p-value and the properties that a 95% confidence interval estimator should have, that’s a big mark against them.
Statistics attracts some folks who are good at solving math problems but aren’t so good at understanding and applying (and adapting!) statistical principles and methods to practical applications, so you can’t rely solely on impressive math training as a marker of talent. On the other hand, there are a lot of folks with quantitative training who use statistics and think they are statisticians, but when you probe them, you find they never learned foundational concepts. A good candidate will have training on the foundations, be able to explain concepts well, and won’t necessarily be able to do everything we need right away, but will be honest about what they can and can’t do and will give you confidence she can learn on the job.

[DanT]

Now, when I serve on faculty hiring committees, the main thing I am looking for is evidence that the candidate will be able to make the impacts needed in advancing the relevant missions for their job. Those missions are a weighted combination of research, teaching, professional service, and clinical (if applicable). Medical school faculty candidates tend to be very impressive, so there you’re generally pretty confident about most aspects of each candidate and ranking them is based on very fine distinctions.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by DanT

When I interview candidates for statistician positions, I like to include questions on basic statistical concepts, because I have learned through the years that there are degree-holding statisticians that don’t know these concepts well enough to explain them clearly and accurately, which makes them less effective for collaborative medical research given that they may be the team member expected to know and account for those concepts in a given setting. Some of the concepts I ask about are ones where it’s ok if the candidate doesn’t know, as there are some concepts that are more specific to a particular area of application and a well-trained person from a different statistical specialty could learn them on the job. For example, a mathematical statistician might have had little to no exposure to certain statistics used when evaluating clinical prediction models. But if a candidate doesn’t know general concepts well, like the definition of a p-value and the properties that a 95% confidence interval estimator should have, that’s a big mark against them.
Statistics attracts some folks who are good at solving math problems but aren’t so good at understanding and applying (and adapting!) statistical principles and methods to practical applications, so you can’t rely solely on impressive math training as a marker of talent. On the other hand, there are a lot of folks with quantitative training who use statistics and think they are statisticians, but when you probe them, you find they never learned foundational concepts. A good candidate will have training on the foundations, be able to explain concepts well, and won’t necessarily be able to do everything we need right away, but will be honest about what they can and can’t do and will give you confidence she can learn on the job.

One of the most impressive resumes I ever received for a quantitative analyst position got through about 10 percent of the math test that we give to prospects before he got up and left. He was a great resume writer, though.

[Rain Man]

One thing that I would do as an interviewer is ask them to describe something on their resume, preferably something specific like a project or an accomplishment that was relevant to our work.

The strong candidates were stoked about being given the opportunity to dive into it. The weak candidates would be vague and not say much. I remember one candidate who couldn't tell me what software she used for the analysis, and at that point the interview was essentially over. Don't put something on your resume unless you're prepared to talk about it in detail.

[Spott]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

One of the most impressive resumes I ever received for a quantitative analyst position got through about 10 percent of the math test that we give to prospects before he got up and left. He was a great resume writer, though.

So is ChatGPT. I’ve been fortunate to have applied for jobs that involved some type of entrance exam. I’ve always done really well on those, especially any with math involved because I’ve been able to multiple large numbers in my head since I was in elementary school, which allowed me to finish these types of exams in no time.

[DanT]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

One of the most impressive resumes I ever received for a quantitative analyst position got through about 10 percent of the math test that we give to prospects before he got up and left. He was a great resume writer, though.

Yeah, you have to test those quantitative folks. Lots of folks think they know how to do data analysis, because they've figured out how to use some software, but when you ask them basic questions, you realize they don't really know what's going on.

[DanT]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

One thing that I would do as an interviewer is ask them to describe something on their resume, preferably something specific like a project or an accomplishment that was relevant to our work.

The strong candidates were stoked about being given the opportunity to dive into it. The weak candidates would be vague and not say much. I remember one candidate who couldn't tell me what software she used for the analysis, and at that point the interview was essentially over. Don't put something on your resume unless you're prepared to talk about it in detail.

Yep, one of the things I usually will put on the standardized questions list for statistician positions will be to ask the candidate to name, for whatever statistical software environment they prefer (e.g. R, SAS, Stata, etc.), the procedures, commands, or functions they have used to carry out regression analysis.

An experienced analyst will be able to list several, the pretenders hardly any.

[DanT]

When we're hiring statisticians, the committee folks from other disciplines will express surprise at the basic questions I'm asking, but then when they hear to answers we get, they realize it was good to ask them. I would bet a lot of fields are like that, where they would benefit from verifying that the candidate actually has the sort of competencies that one would expect from a degree-holder or experienced candidate.

[Boxer_Chief]

My interviews I’ve been in the past couple weeks have all been pretty technical which makes sense I’m a data analyst so they want to know how I’ve used python sql power bi and the reasoning behind it. I lost my job a couple weeks ago due to downsizing so I’ve had roughly 15 interviews the past two weeks and honestly I’m tired of it. Ready to get an offer. I’ve had several second and third interviews and now I’m just waiting. Sucks.

[DanT]

Originally Posted by Boxer_Chief

My interviews I’ve been in the past couple weeks have all been pretty technical which makes sense I’m a data analyst so they want to know how I’ve used python sql power bi and the reasoning behind it. I lost my job a couple weeks ago due to downsizing so I’ve had roughly 15 interviews the past two weeks and honestly I’m tired of it. Ready to get an offer. I’ve had several second and third interviews and now I’m just waiting. Sucks.

Good luck and may you find a great position sooner rather than later!