However, I got an email from the recruiter today that said I didn't get the job and had this feedback from the company.
1. The role being entry level and her desire to be in a lead or supervisory role within 6 month.
a. It is great to have goals and to be ambitious but it need to be realistic.
2. Not answering questions during the interview and interrupting the interviewers.
a. She was enthusiastic and excited to be here but it is concerning when candidates don’t allow interviewers to finish their statements or answer the question they were asked.
I am pleased that I got real feedback, but I'm a bit confused. I didn't say I wanted to be in a supervisory role in 6 months, that's much too fast. I don't want to be doing basic entry level tasks after a year or so, sure, and I know I said that.
I will admit I probably jumped the gun with some of the questions. That's something I can fix immediately.
However, the not answering questions? That one's bugging me. One of the questions I got was this: "Why did you choose to get a science degree?"
Um? Because I like science? A friend of mine says I should say things like, "It's always been my dream. Even as a small child I loved the idea of science."
Also, the same interviewer asked me how I work with people who are different from me. By doing my work and getting along with others. Seems basic to me, but yeah, I guess I've got to come up with an answer for this.
There were three interviewers. The first and second went well - very well, it seemed. The third interviewer was very different; she just didn't seem to like me. She's the one who asked both of the above questions, and she kept saying that the job is 100% boring repetitive tasks.
This was an entry level manufacturing job at a company which gets really bad marks on glassdoor. The complaints are all that there's no training and no management, that the entry level jobs are literally labeling tubes for 8 hours a day 5 days a week, with random unpaid overtime and no chance of movement.
The first two interviewers made a point of saying that there's a shiny new training program and that no one has to do repetitive tasks all the time, although there are points in the manufacturing cycle where that is the main task.
The third one asked me why, if all my experience is in research, I'm applying for manufacturing jobs. I said that research is all that's done in school and that all my experience is academic. And that I understand that manufacturing is vital and important - if we don't make the things to help people, there's no point in inventing the cures at all.
The third interviewer used to be in charge of the manufacturing department and recently changed departments - right before the new people create a training program. Any bets about what's going on in the management?
I'm frustrated with not getting the job, although it was just barely above my minimum pay and for a company that doesn't sound great. The coming management fight looks uncomfortable.
I mean, it would be nice to have gotten a job, but maybe it's okay to have missed out on this one.