I agree with you that the whole thing is “ugh”, but when I score candidates, I give more credit to the person who uses non-jargon terms in a solid response than the person who throws out jargon incorrectly. You can generally tell when someone has memorized a bunch of acronyms pulled from the agency website right before the interview.
Also, if you’ve got two candidates that give a similar answer to a question except one says “dirt” when we are looking for 'sediment", yeah, that candidate will be scored lower, because a person who doesn’t know that “sediment” is the word we use in our field is showing they don’t have much experience in the field. But if the other candidate goofs up another question to the same degree, then the two candidates will be on equal footing. In a more subjective interview process, saying “dirt” would be enough to disqualify you.
Yes, that’s how it is when you don’t use the kind of hiring process that my employer uses. One mistake is enough to get you out of the running. It doesn’t work like that in a more structured process whereby every response is judged independently of the others and there are multiple people doing the judging.
The last time I interviewed for a school librarian position was 12 years ago, and there wasn’t a librarian on the panel. If I dropped a word/phrase that I didn’t think anyone on the panel would be familiar with I followed up with an explanation. I worked with the principal for 10 years (he moved on a couple years ago), so what I did worked. I’d probably have a very tough time finding a different type of job, so I hope that is never necessary unless it’s a “give me something to do during retirement” job.
I question the value of being so pedantic with the interview process, unless your objective is to hire pedants. Being detail-oriented and knowledgeable is good and all, but you have to evaluate the big picture. Like is it more desirable to be able to recite the PMIBOK handbook on project management or demonstrate x years of successfully leading complex projects applying good project management principles, but modified for individual companies and clients?
Like one time I didn’t get a job because I didn’t have a preference in project managing work stream A, B or C (whatever they were called). They all seemed very similar in size, subject matter, and importance and there is no way for me to really know much more than that. So why is it important for me to decide? Plus the person I would be reporting to came across very much like an idiot. So that turned me off.
Off topic, but ask her if you can be on her benefits. When our daughter worked for airlines, we flew a lot of places free (nearly free, you still have to pay the taxes.) We went to Hong Kong in business class for $900 round trip.
You don’t get the priority of the employee, but it is still a good deal.
My parents get to enjoy all the free flights they want. My sis is the favored child in the family because of this. All I can offer them is algae, which they haven’t taken me up on yet for some reason.
But twice I have been able to fly internationally at a very discounted rate. I had never flown first class before my sister got her job. It is amazing.
There are jobs that aren’t completely bottom barrel (think around 2x minimum wage + benefits, rather than minimum wage) that will hire anyone. Of course these jobs aren’t everywhere and convenient for everyone and turnover is high. I just mention this for anyone who just needs an income and something to do while waiting for a “fit.” Also this involves physical labor. I understand many may not have the fitness due to health concerns while others have chosen to neglect their health and made themselves unfit to do many life things that may be required when comforts go away.
I did not have a job for 13 years. I worked for myself. That took a toll on me and I found myself pretty much responsible for the livelihoods of myself, biz partner, multiple families, etc. I personally was making almost nothing but I enjoyed the “freedom.” A few years back I took a warehouse job and the interview was pretty much “Do you want a job?” take a drug test and pass a background. I’m still doing that job. It won’t do much for anyone living a comfortable upper middle-class lifestyle on the coast but a frugal guy in the Midwest is doing alright. I made in the lower 30s through the first 6 months of 2020, though the base salary is closer to that per year. Got a lot of easy money OT and pandemic pay incentives this year. Also cashed out some stock. I’m taking sort of an IT bootcamp thing right now that is paid for by employer and my business still exists in a reduced form. Also, my physical fitness, body composition, overall health, stress, are all at all-time highs in my 40s. Since I’m more relaxed now I have more time for business ideas that do not depend on clients or many external factors. So I’m sort of building that on the side.
On the other hand my 19 year-old son was just rejected by McDonald’s due to a failed background check, which we can only figure must be from a juvenile misdemeanor when he was 14. If I hadn’t taken the warehouse job I probably would have been rejected by fast food. A lot of times even minimum wage jobs are about knowing the right people or being in the right situation.
I think ideally there should be a lot more jobs between “not completely bottom of the barrel” and working at Google or Goldman Sachs. Granted I tend to look at jobs closer to the latter.
So I had another interview at “Company 2” I mentioned above. This was with the head of the department I would be working for, after going through a round of 4 interviews last week, plus another interview, plus the HR guy.
It went something like this:
Interviewer (who looked bored): “You already went through a bunch of interviews, so I’ll just talk about the position a bit and then let you ask some questions.”
Me (to self): “Uhhh…because you have already reached a decision after six other data points or because you can’t be bothered to conduct a proper interview?”
He did ask me a couple of really stupid questions like “what tools I use” as an engagement manager. Like would you ask a plumber what tools he uses as a plumber? “Sure…I used an adjustable wrench. Sometimes a 5/8” wrench. Sometimes 1/2" wrench. Occasionally a 8, 10, 11, and 12mm wrench if I’m dealing with metric."
Really the whole interview left me with a “fuck this guy, I’ll keep looking” vibe.
I had an another interview with a different company where apparently the recruiter thought that managing projects with a duration of 4 months or so was a critical skill. I’ve managed short 2 week projects. 4-10 week projects, some of which turned into 10-20 week projects. Ongoing year after year projects. Sometimes multiple projects. What in your idiot mind makes the particular duration of the project so important compared to other factors like budget, number of people working on it, complexity? Content and subject matter?
Hmmm… I think that sometimes using the more common if less technically accurate term can be a sign of experience.
I worked in the lighting industry. The correct terminology was drummed into my head when I was starting out. This terminology does not line up with the language used in the real world.
The object that you insert into the socket of your desk lamp is not properly called a bulb. That object is called a lamp. And your desk lamp, that thing with a cord and a shade and a socket and a plug is not properly called a lamp. That object is a lighting fixture and the thing you screw into the socket of that object is the lamp. “Bulb” is only correct if you are specifically referIng to the glass envelope that surrounds the filament of the lamp.
When I was young and new in the business, I used these terms religiously. I corrected architects and builders that asked about light bulbs. I wasn’t quite pretentious enough to correct friends and family for talking about light bulbs but I certainly knew people that were.
Then as I got older I felt less need to prove myself. It became more important to communicate clearly and succinctly. So I gradually fell into using the words according to their mainstream definition. By this point, I was experienced and respected enough that no one would see this as ignorance and it was way easier on so many levels.
“Dirt” instead of “sediment” in my field is like a person using the term “weeds” instead of “grasses” in a job interview for a botanist position. Are the two terms similar enough to the layperson to not be a big deal? Sure. But if you are looking for someone who can represent your organization in a polished, professional manner, you choose the person who demonstrates their use of standard terminology. Not the person who is going to come out of pocket with stuff.
I mean, sure, I can go along with some non-standard terminology if I know the person or their resume is super impressive. If someone has a long list of first-authored publications under their belt and they’ve made a name for themselves in my field, I’ll probably assume they are using “dirt” instead of “sediment” because they are eccentric. But if I’ve got three other candidates who use the words that best signal their knowledge, skills, and abilities and one that doesn’t, it won’t be hard for me to winnow down the list of candidates to the ones who I don’t have to worry about driving me nuts with their weird terminology, all other things being equal.
On all the hiring panels I’ve served on, most of the applicants we’ve called in for interviews have been qualified enough to do the job. Even “dirt” person could do the job. It’s not always about finding the most qualified candidate. Sometimes it’s just a search for the person who throws up the fewest number of red flags.
I get what you are saying, but I think job interviews are one of the few venues where proving yourself should be the expectation. There are words that are super jargony that I think are wise to avoid in an interview unless you’re absolutely sure the interviewer will be familiar with them. But I just can’t see how avoiding professional terminology would ever be wise.