I've had some before,
but it's not just for my benefit. I think in general they're a bit of a rubbish and arbitrary way to choose someone for a job. I can't be the only one in the world who could do loads of stuff given the chance, but struggles to impress anyone in an interview. Let's face it, it's rarely a skill that's ever needed to do the actual job itself.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Mon 1 Jun 2009, 13:21, archived)

There are plenty of jobs who have practical skills tested in the interview.
The one for Amazon takes all day.
( Master Of Turnips. Only gays and morons believe in ghosts., Mon 1 Jun 2009, 13:24, archived)

I had one like that for the civil service,
there was an interview as well (which was a particularly horrible one), but all things considered, my rejection from that particular job was entirely justified.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Mon 1 Jun 2009, 13:25, archived)

That was quite a curious arrangement, actually.
We were told at the start, "this is not a competition, any one of you who meets the required standard will be offered a position, even if that's all of you, or none of you."
I can't imagine how that works, internally, but there you go.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Mon 1 Jun 2009, 13:46, archived)

uh huh, it's clearly the interview process that is flawed and not just you being shit at them
interviews are fine, providing they are not done in a manner of answering to a check list. they are also for the interviewee's benefit to see what the prospect employer is like. It is not a one way thing, and if the prospect employer thinks it is, well.. I wouldn't work for them, but if in need of a job, accept it'll be shit.
( Jenk Neptune is a pedant and now I can't fit my sig in, Mon 1 Jun 2009, 13:28, archived)

no it's you being really good at them.
ok yes, I am shit at them. But that doesn't mean I can't do anything useful. Which is entirely my point.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Mon 1 Jun 2009, 13:29, archived)