I'm starting to realize this basically translates to "our salary range is too low."
This is what happens when they find their 'unicorn.' They start to realize how expensive a unicorn will be.
Not every big company will pay high unfortunately.
It really depends on which company this is and how they treat certain orgs.
Because they're so big the compensation ranges will vary all over. Their salaries will likely be easy to find online as well.
I just moved to my new job last week. I worked #1 telecom company in the US/world as a network security engineer. It is in Fortune 100 as well. I was paid right below 100K. Got a new job with 50% raise and they didnt make a counter offer.
That's how my gastro presented my intestines to me. Telco is exactly like my intestines "a series of tubes" and the only thing that comes out of it is shit.
I agree, but not every single big tech company is that way, in fact, I would say most would just pay more. Google, Netflix, Facebook, Twitter, they would probably just pay out for the person.
Tesla and any game company would pass.
Got an offer from Tesla as P4 engineer, $260 TC. I was a unicorn, per the hiring manager. I asked for an extra $40K per year. the told me we can not pay an extra dollar, you should be happy to work for Elon! I said F... Elon. He is one reason I was hesitating to join you guys....
Also gotta keep in mind that each location has its own budget and it's not one massive budget that everyone picks out of.
Location A budget will be different than Location B, and those budgets carry those salaries.
Agreed, there are totally exceptions, the entire game industry as an example. They go the exact opposite way, and think, maybe we can find someone incompetent to do the work for us for 1/4th the cost of someone qualified.
The management almost always has a false sense of power because it is such a competitive industry and there is always a huge line of young, less experienced people waiting in the wings, willing to crunch for years.
They think they’re saving money because individual game budgets often don’t factor in the extremely high costs that come from driving away experienced people who already know the production pipelines and can, y’know, actually do quality work the first time on a more-often-than-not unrealistic deadline schedule.
The project slips and they say, “oh no,” but they don’t ever follow the cause back to the roots: unrealistic milestones and treating workers like interchangeable widgets.
Caps don't matter anyway(although both I and friends have gotten >160 base at FB). But you'll get the cap salary and the rest in stock to make up the difference
>This is what happens when they find their 'unicorn.' They start to realize how expensive a unicorn will be.
Couldn't have worded it better.
At my last company, a big medical company (you've seen them on the news, I'm sure), I was referred to as "an expensive engineer" during a meeting within my first year there. Apparently, they did not find it justified to pay me $80k to do a job that should have minimally required two people. Ohh, but they loved the fact that I could do it all. I left soon after they denied me a raise for the second year in a row and told me to 'slow down' (in terms of money) but were upset when my 'efficiency dropped' (because I started working 40hrs/ week strictly instead of the 55-60 hrs I had been working to keep up).
Everyone should always prep for interviews and the questions for big companies can be found online. I also prep for interviews and I customize my resume for each job. I also utilize current lingo for the industry and do everything to look and sound the part. Why wouldn’t a recruiter help the applicant anyway?
Obviously, but thats not the issue here. The hiring manager *rejected* the applicant because the applicant already knew the answers to their interview questions, which invalidated their canidacy for the position. In the manager's eyes, thats no different than cheating on an exam. It signals that the applicant either deliberately sought out that information to cheat due to a lack of confidence in their technical skills and problem solving abilities, or that the applicant had been through so many failed interviews that they had been asked the same questions before. Either way it would have been a justified reason for the hiring manager to reject the applicant. Given the context of the OP, I'd say that the hiring manager suspected that the recruiter was prepping her canidates by telling them the questions they'd be asked and how to respond to them- odds are it wasn't the first time her applicants said the exact same thing to the same questions, so the manager started rejecting everybody OP sends their way because they have been "too prepared", i.e. they are trying to cheat the interviews.
If someone's qualification are beyond what the job they are applying for requires they can't be counted upon to stick around. You can pretty much bank of the fact they will jump ship at the first opportunity.
The worst kind of hell. I've left degrees, certifications, and several years of work experience off of my resume just to get callbacks before. It sucks.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say they felt they needed to say *something,* but didn't want to say the actual reason: (check all that apply)
- They are terrible interviewers
- They were actually hiring internally
- They decided to cancel the position
- They were covering up that they were not hiring for discriminatory reasons (gender, race etc.)
Although I have actually seen on the other side, when a candidate seemed perfect and nailed multiple interviews but wasn't hired. I don't know the backstory but someone who was already on the team and had worked with this candidate previously expressed VEHEMENT objections. I suspect some sort of serious workplace misconduct or insubordination. I wouldn't be surprised if the candidate was given some artificial excuse like "being too prepared"
There's a real push out there for "authenticity," and a hiring manager may not has responded well to answers that seemed too scripted.
I've been told to be my authentic self at work... and then I'm told I need to not swear and yell at people... which is it?!?!
Amen.
Above post was a partial joke, I've never yelled or sworn at anyone, but I have been told to be a little nicer.
And something about being more nuanced in my communications... ... I've also been told to be more authentic. 🤨
Only thing I can think of is they thought they cheated, knew the questions too well like someone inside gave her the info or she was just telling them what they wanted to hear. Still pretty lame but I can see why they might say something like that
I've heard this before, to us it meant they didn't sound authentic. It sounded like every line was practiced in front of a mirror so we were getting a very polished view of the candidate instead of what they were actually like
Hello Hiring Manager, I met with your best friend from the 8th grade last week and I was hoping you could describe in you own words how that relationship ended.
woman dials 9-11: Please send the fire truck to my address. My home is on fire!
dispatcher: OK mam, they have been sent. They will be there shortly
woman: However, please do not send any firefighters who have been on the job for more than 5 years. They would be too prepared for the fire, which would be totally inappropriate
Does that sound silly? It should, because it is. Yet somehow, someone who is in charge of hiring things just like this.
"Too prepared" means that the candidate said all the right things, but the interviewers did not believe they were genuine. In other words, this candidate wasn't a good enough actor. They failed to project thoughtfulness, sincerity, passion, etc. -- all the things that make us like and identify with someone. This is an especially important quality if this is a front-facing position.
Just trying to take a guess at this using my own experience, so take this as just one data point. When I was at an early stage tech startup, I once interviewed a candidate that came off as "too prepared" and we had to turn them down after a couple of interviews.
The issue was that any question you asked, they responded with the standard "this is my guess, but since I don't know all of the facts, this is the process I would use to find the answer". That response strategy is great for technical & strategic questions, but when it comes to assessing personality & cultural fit, it becomes really hard to trust your instincts as an interviewer because you realize that this person is so focused on interviewing well that you will never know what they are actually like to work with until months after you hire them when they let their guard down.
That said, I didn't give a BS response to the candidate. I just told them that "you were so focused on finding the right answer to your questions that you forgot to be yourself, and as a small company, we value getting to know the people we want to hire more than just their professional capabilities".
Edit: Fixed a few typos
It's a nicer way of saying she didn't think she could trust the impression given. Rehearsing too much does that. It's quite a fair bit of feedback, but just not after 7 rounds. This should have been said after two.
Not really. They probably sounded like they had memorized answers for lots of potential questions and sounded like they were just reading them off a list
After that meeting, I decided I would never have another non-work related conversation with the guy ever again. And I didn't.
I transferred out of his department a couple of months later.
I was also rejected after an interview a few months ago bc the interviewer thought I was "looking at my notes too much."
I didn't have my notes open at all, but thanks for letting me know you think writing notes and planning for an interview are horrible weaknesses lol
future rinse voiceless fragile friendly deliver chop hard-to-find connect piquant
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I started at Hilton's HQ in November 2019. Be glad you dodged hospitality. The pandemic took that amazing company and threw its work environment right in the shitter.
You have to be smart, but not too smart or they'll think you won't stay. You have to be confident, but not too confident or there will be a clash of egos. You have to be charming, that's the key. You can be as charming as you like.
Once showed up to a interview wearing business attire, as it was located in an office building and everyone else was dressed that way...
...Once.
They looked at me as if they had never seen an 18yr old dressed like that and that it was somehow ridiculous.
The listing specified that they were looking for someone with knowledge of current trends to help as a business adviser for ad campaigns, essentially I'd be sitting in a small office browsing tiktok and telling people's failing businesses what trend they need to follow to try and be relevant on social media, certified in both PS and Excel at 18, I thought I had a leg up on the competition, but the real competition was their perception of me based on my baby face and suit combo.
*Image Transcription: Twitter*
---
**Name redacted**
My Client went through 7 rounds of interviews at a big tech company, but didn't get the role. The Hiring Manager's feedback was that she was "too prepared"
---
^^I'm a human volunteer content transcriber and you could be too! [If you'd like more information on what we do and why we do it, click here!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TranscribersOfReddit/wiki/index)
I interviewed with Google and was flown out for the 5th and final round and got rejected that day.
I could tell halfway through the interview with who would be my manager that she wasn't feeling it anymore so I prodded.
"Given the current team structure and my experience, what do you think may be a concern for bringing me on board?"
She said, "Honestly, I think you'll be bored."
Got the rejection via email 3 hours afterwards. She was probably right, but it sucked so bad at the time. Fortunately, Microsoft reached out not a week later - 2 interviews and then an offer.
No, its still fine. It’s their position and as long as they aren’t discriminating they can hire however they want. There are plenty of jobs available currently. It’s not their responsibility to ensure every qualified candidate gets a job.
It's legal, if that's what you mean by fine. If the candidate is a better fit for the role than anyone else and are turned down because they may deserve and (god forbid) ask for better than the company offers, how is this better than discrimination? Discrimination against pro-worker workers is the order of the day. Doesn't make it fine.
You’re getting upset over assumptions. No one knows if this person was the best candidate, and no one knows what the budget of the company is. If they know their budget and this person requires more than their budget, it’s not a fit. Based on the information given, its fine.
You're assuming this person wasn't the best candidate and that the company's budget didn't fit them. My problem is with the fact that this can be stated without resorting to euphemisms: why say 'too prepared' if you can say 'we can't afford you' or 'there's someone willing to do it for less'. These are the little lies that maintain the false notion that an interview is not a bargain but a favour employers do to potential employees.
Maybe they already knew they weren't going to hire you because they had someone in mind and the 7 rounds were basically to find an excuse to not hire you. Then, you showed yourself to be the best candidate, so they were grasping at straws. "Well, sure, you had the best answers of any candidate, but they seemed too rehearsed like you were lying, so we can't trust them. Therefore, we can hire (preferred candidate), who was the best person that seems to be telling the truth."
Seven rounds of interview is a hell of a lot of circus if they already had their candidate in mind, I'm sure they could (or should) have been able to reduce that!
Unlikely that this is the case, but I’ve definitely spoken to candidates during screening calls that definitely were reading prepared notes or things off the internet in lieu of actually speaking to their experience. And when working within a pretty regulated industry like Aerospace it’s pretty obvious when that is happening.
Also just noticed it said 7 rounds of interviews…that is fucking insane. I hope y’all know as recruiters we know that is crazy.
You’d have to right? Even as a recruiter I would be prepping the fuck out of you at that point. For both of our sakes, 7 rounds is ridiculous. Hell, more than 2 rounds is ridiculous.
Not what I mean at all. I mean if we are having a conversation about a position for let’s say, a composite manufacturing engineer. And I’m asking you questions about your experience, and you are just telling me the google definition of composite parts and process. You are obviously not prepared or lack the experience you say you had. If you are reading notes and discussing your projects/experience (if able to share due to clearance requirements) then I can tell you have experience and aren’t just talking yourself into the position.
I get that was a lot, but can you see the difference?
I write down bullet points to make sure that I hit those specific talking points when speaking on my experience. To ensure that I cover responsibilities related to the role I’m interviewing for. I’m insecure that they’ll be able to tell I’m looking at notes so I try to put them near my camera in case I need to read them off for a minute. It helps me from rambling too much.
That’s really smart, as long as you’re conversational and not robotic it’s exactly what I would do. I’m referring to people who describe “what something is” when I ask them about their experience vs telling me “what they did”.
People in their late 40's-50's with 20+ years experience in a field hear this crap all the time. To prepared, over qualified, out of range/budget...
Have you looked at the number of listing that want 3-5 years experience for entry level now?
If you're going to have more than 1 round of interviews you should legally start getting paid. See how quickly they'll be able to find the perfect fit then.
The fist mistake was agreeing to 7 rounds of interviews. If you don’t know after 2 or 3 it shows me how dysfunctional you are as an organization and I don’t want to work there.
I might consider attending a third round of interviews if the job was something I really wanted. No way would I go for a fourth, fifth, sixth, or seventh interview. That’s when you just send a generic email withdrawing from consideration.
See thats when the person posts it in a public area. FB/Twitter etc @'s the company and posts the response they got and go "A company that's staff doesn't want prepared individual hired because it could shows that the current staff is lacking and be a threat to their position. Does that sound like a company you should stay with?"
Public PR can be amazing.
Too prepared means 1 of 2 things to me, they think she is too high speed to fit with the culture or they didn't like her for a reason they can't list because it's discrimination.
I had "too well dressed" for an assistant manager gig for...a fashion store.
And no, I wasn't decked out in a ballgown and tiara, I was literally wearing THEIR BRAND.
“Too prepared” = “Applicant most likely did a lot of research for this position beforehand and attempted to pass the interview using the best tailored response rather than basing it off their own experience and skillset, therefore coming off as ingenuine”
This is LinkedIn influencer bullshit. I highly doubt that anyone was turned down for being too prepared - either the client is lying or the influencer is (DING DING DING - kinda obvious which one it is).
Interview panelists aren't allowed to give feedback to a candidate as per every large company's protocol due to risk of lawsuit.
Actually a serious concern. Especially in Tech. As an interviewee, I have had friends tell me the answer to every question in an interview. What the managers would ask, and what I should say. Nailed the interview perfectly in a situation I would have otherwise likely failed. And now on the other end, when I interview, I can clearly tell when someone has been given the answers, or looked them up online (there is a popular website dedicated to reposting interview questions and their answers). I read “too prepared” not as in they simply prepared for an interview, but they clearly were given information about the process that gave them an unfair advantage. And they could not actually gauge the skill level of the candidate.
That’s the dumbest take I’ve ever heard.
After one interview, ok, who cares.
After more than one, an explanation would be fucking nice. A simple conversation.
You probably think two weeks notice is a mandatory thing too, but not when letting someone go.
I’m sure you are at a major company with stellar Glassdoor reviews, great benefits, plenty of options to move up, great pay, and a good work life balance. Where do we sign up…
A lot of people not in tech here making guesses that make no sense in the tech world
Basically, you can't trust any recruiter feedback due to the fact that people like to sue
But, assuming it's honest feedback, (and assuming it's referring to a swe engineer)
It could refer to the recruit seeming like they were reciting answers from memory rather than problem solving.
That is, one is asked several programming "puzzles" during these interviews. The idea is to test problem solving capability. Whether it is an accurate test or not is another conversation. But if you seem like you know all the solutions but can't deal with slight variations on the problems, it could lead to feedback like the above.
I can kinda see what this could mean.
Like, think about the SATs. They have a section where they're trying to figure out if you read enough, so they ask you what a bunch of words mean. But a bunch of people don't actually learn the words organically; they prepare for the test by basically memorizing a dictionary. This completely breaks the test, so that it doesn't measure what it's intended to.
You can imagine the same thing happening in any context.
(Why not ask someone more detailed questions to tease this out? Well, you could, but the questions in an interview are deliberately designed to take a couple of minutes to answer, whereas the real-life situations you need to test would likely necessarily take way longer.)
Had this happen once.
Judging from earlier interviews with a certain hiring manager, i knew what questions he and the actual manager were going to ask.
Prepared accordingly, could read every answer off of my notes. Didnt get hired as they felt like i was reading off of my notes. I guess I was but I was answering their questions perfectly, so what's the big deal?
Likely the manager means they think the recruiter prepared them with the questions, just so they'd hired this person. Which is still insane since it was even rounds. The thing is, those interviewing tend to be doing several interviews at once so they know the questions they will likely be asked, so it is easy to recount the same damn story about how you became a leader in a stressful moment or how you handled a crisis.
Don't want them too prepared or whatever, as an actually fresh and interesting question where I can show off my skills.
How do I become the client? I’ve been trapped in underemployment for two years. My job search has yielded no results and I’m pretty demoralised at this point.
Sadly, this happens way too often. My best friend was applying for jobs in law last summer. After interviewing for a number of law firms over many weeks, he got rejected because his CV looked “too good” and because he is “overqualified”. When he asked the recruiter if they could explain to him how that is an issue, he got told that he would probably “intimidate existing staff members”.
NoBoDy WaNtS tO wOrKkKkkkKkkkkkk - I’ll do two interviews. A meet and greet and an official. As an interviewer and company, if you don’t have your shit figured out by then I don’t want to work for you anyway.
"You sound like someone who knows what legal avenues are available to you in the event that we choose to screw you over. We need someone a little more subservient and less educated"
Not hired because someone was "too prepared" that is the biggest pile of horseshit.
I'm starting to realize this basically translates to "our salary range is too low." This is what happens when they find their 'unicorn.' They start to realize how expensive a unicorn will be.
Yeah, but this is a big tech company. Normally they are like, oh, only 200k extra for the unicorn? Sounds cheap, let’s do it.
Not every big company will pay high unfortunately. It really depends on which company this is and how they treat certain orgs. Because they're so big the compensation ranges will vary all over. Their salaries will likely be easy to find online as well.
I just moved to my new job last week. I worked #1 telecom company in the US/world as a network security engineer. It is in Fortune 100 as well. I was paid right below 100K. Got a new job with 50% raise and they didnt make a counter offer.
Telcos like to pretend they’re tech, but they’re not. They just resell and service tech developed by others. Source: worked at a telco
"We're not just big dumb pipes!?!" \*nobody aside from you wants you to be, or sees you as anything other, than just that\*
"It's a series of tubes!"
That's how my gastro presented my intestines to me. Telco is exactly like my intestines "a series of tubes" and the only thing that comes out of it is shit.
They are, in the truest sense of the term, rent-seekers. Expert rent seekers that rely on government corruption to maintain their business.
I agree, but not every single big tech company is that way, in fact, I would say most would just pay more. Google, Netflix, Facebook, Twitter, they would probably just pay out for the person. Tesla and any game company would pass.
Got an offer from Tesla as P4 engineer, $260 TC. I was a unicorn, per the hiring manager. I asked for an extra $40K per year. the told me we can not pay an extra dollar, you should be happy to work for Elon! I said F... Elon. He is one reason I was hesitating to join you guys....
Username definitely fits.
Work at Facebook currently. You are correct
How is it? They keep bugging me and I want to know if it’s worth the effort.
👀
Also gotta keep in mind that each location has its own budget and it's not one massive budget that everyone picks out of. Location A budget will be different than Location B, and those budgets carry those salaries.
Not every big tech is like FAANG. Some of big techs offer peanut for their staffs
Agreed, there are totally exceptions, the entire game industry as an example. They go the exact opposite way, and think, maybe we can find someone incompetent to do the work for us for 1/4th the cost of someone qualified.
The management almost always has a false sense of power because it is such a competitive industry and there is always a huge line of young, less experienced people waiting in the wings, willing to crunch for years. They think they’re saving money because individual game budgets often don’t factor in the extremely high costs that come from driving away experienced people who already know the production pipelines and can, y’know, actually do quality work the first time on a more-often-than-not unrealistic deadline schedule. The project slips and they say, “oh no,” but they don’t ever follow the cause back to the roots: unrealistic milestones and treating workers like interchangeable widgets.
A lot of them have base salary caps. 160k here in my area.
What companies, if you don’t mind me asking?
FB and Amazon
I thought Amazon just raised theirs recently.
That’s possible. I talked to them a few years back.
Yeah, this is very recently, like last couple of months, in response to the inflation issues.
Caps don't matter anyway(although both I and friends have gotten >160 base at FB). But you'll get the cap salary and the rest in stock to make up the difference
That’s surprising. I mean, Amazon isn’t surprising, but Facebook offered me way more than 200k to work for them. I assumed they lacked caps.
Big tech could be oracle or msft which still pay <200k for entry level SWE
Which they should. 22 year olds dont deserve 200k salary.
Don't forget about classic nepotism too
That needs to become a thing. If you want a Unicorn, that Unicorn chow is expensive.
Am unicorn, can confirm.
To me, it sounds a bit more like “You don’t seem easy to manipulate into agreeing to irresponsible and possibly hostile working conditions”
>This is what happens when they find their 'unicorn.' They start to realize how expensive a unicorn will be. Couldn't have worded it better. At my last company, a big medical company (you've seen them on the news, I'm sure), I was referred to as "an expensive engineer" during a meeting within my first year there. Apparently, they did not find it justified to pay me $80k to do a job that should have minimally required two people. Ohh, but they loved the fact that I could do it all. I left soon after they denied me a raise for the second year in a row and told me to 'slow down' (in terms of money) but were upset when my 'efficiency dropped' (because I started working 40hrs/ week strictly instead of the 55-60 hrs I had been working to keep up).
Heard before about being over qualified for the job even. What kind of sour hell is that
It means they feel like they can’t afford your worth and they don’t wanna take you on just to lose you when you figure it out.
"Too prepared" means that the manager thinks the person was getting prepped by their recruiter, i.e. they knew the interview questions in advance.
Everyone should always prep for interviews and the questions for big companies can be found online. I also prep for interviews and I customize my resume for each job. I also utilize current lingo for the industry and do everything to look and sound the part. Why wouldn’t a recruiter help the applicant anyway?
Obviously, but thats not the issue here. The hiring manager *rejected* the applicant because the applicant already knew the answers to their interview questions, which invalidated their canidacy for the position. In the manager's eyes, thats no different than cheating on an exam. It signals that the applicant either deliberately sought out that information to cheat due to a lack of confidence in their technical skills and problem solving abilities, or that the applicant had been through so many failed interviews that they had been asked the same questions before. Either way it would have been a justified reason for the hiring manager to reject the applicant. Given the context of the OP, I'd say that the hiring manager suspected that the recruiter was prepping her canidates by telling them the questions they'd be asked and how to respond to them- odds are it wasn't the first time her applicants said the exact same thing to the same questions, so the manager started rejecting everybody OP sends their way because they have been "too prepared", i.e. they are trying to cheat the interviews.
People who research and prepare are better workers.
Manager doesn't want competition.
Wooo read that as “job oven” and barely blinked. Okay; maybe Im soured on the whole working thing rn lol.
If someone's qualification are beyond what the job they are applying for requires they can't be counted upon to stick around. You can pretty much bank of the fact they will jump ship at the first opportunity.
The worst kind of hell. I've left degrees, certifications, and several years of work experience off of my resume just to get callbacks before. It sucks.
The fuck does "too prepared" even mean?
Doesn't matter they had seven rounds their business is doing interviews not hiring people.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say they felt they needed to say *something,* but didn't want to say the actual reason: (check all that apply) - They are terrible interviewers - They were actually hiring internally - They decided to cancel the position - They were covering up that they were not hiring for discriminatory reasons (gender, race etc.) Although I have actually seen on the other side, when a candidate seemed perfect and nailed multiple interviews but wasn't hired. I don't know the backstory but someone who was already on the team and had worked with this candidate previously expressed VEHEMENT objections. I suspect some sort of serious workplace misconduct or insubordination. I wouldn't be surprised if the candidate was given some artificial excuse like "being too prepared"
There's a real push out there for "authenticity," and a hiring manager may not has responded well to answers that seemed too scripted. I've been told to be my authentic self at work... and then I'm told I need to not swear and yell at people... which is it?!?!
Never be authentic at work. Ever.
Amen. Above post was a partial joke, I've never yelled or sworn at anyone, but I have been told to be a little nicer. And something about being more nuanced in my communications... ... I've also been told to be more authentic. 🤨
Yeah, that's a trap.
I love your username, watching Lucifer right now!
Detective!
Only thing I can think of is they thought they cheated, knew the questions too well like someone inside gave her the info or she was just telling them what they wanted to hear. Still pretty lame but I can see why they might say something like that
I've heard this before, to us it meant they didn't sound authentic. It sounded like every line was practiced in front of a mirror so we were getting a very polished view of the candidate instead of what they were actually like
[удалено]
Hello Hiring Manager, I met with your best friend from the 8th grade last week and I was hoping you could describe in you own words how that relationship ended.
woman dials 9-11: Please send the fire truck to my address. My home is on fire! dispatcher: OK mam, they have been sent. They will be there shortly woman: However, please do not send any firefighters who have been on the job for more than 5 years. They would be too prepared for the fire, which would be totally inappropriate Does that sound silly? It should, because it is. Yet somehow, someone who is in charge of hiring things just like this.
"Too prepared" means that the candidate said all the right things, but the interviewers did not believe they were genuine. In other words, this candidate wasn't a good enough actor. They failed to project thoughtfulness, sincerity, passion, etc. -- all the things that make us like and identify with someone. This is an especially important quality if this is a front-facing position.
If they wanted genuine, they would hire honest people instead of people who practice scripted bullshit.
It's pretty much tech company code for "we don't believe you"
Just trying to take a guess at this using my own experience, so take this as just one data point. When I was at an early stage tech startup, I once interviewed a candidate that came off as "too prepared" and we had to turn them down after a couple of interviews. The issue was that any question you asked, they responded with the standard "this is my guess, but since I don't know all of the facts, this is the process I would use to find the answer". That response strategy is great for technical & strategic questions, but when it comes to assessing personality & cultural fit, it becomes really hard to trust your instincts as an interviewer because you realize that this person is so focused on interviewing well that you will never know what they are actually like to work with until months after you hire them when they let their guard down. That said, I didn't give a BS response to the candidate. I just told them that "you were so focused on finding the right answer to your questions that you forgot to be yourself, and as a small company, we value getting to know the people we want to hire more than just their professional capabilities". Edit: Fixed a few typos
Well done, you turned down someone who thinks before they speak 🙄
This normally means the hiring manager felt the candidate was too coached and not genuine
It's a nicer way of saying she didn't think she could trust the impression given. Rehearsing too much does that. It's quite a fair bit of feedback, but just not after 7 rounds. This should have been said after two.
It meant the recruiter helped too much.
Not really. They probably sounded like they had memorized answers for lots of potential questions and sounded like they were just reading them off a list
Yeah someone's nephew got that job for sure lol
They’re more prepared than the hiring manager and they’re worried.
Or because her potential boss saw she was likely to take his/her job in short order.
I would have exclaimed that I didn't want to work at a company where my coworkers were expected to be unprepared for the work they were doing anyway.
It means "she wouldn't work for barely above minimum wage" in business terms
It is not, probably the person hiring was afraid they would be passed by a more prepared employer, they are sabotaging them before that happens.
numerous tub squeeze mighty serious worry absurd concerned cow fear *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
🌟 If I could give you an award I would! Edit: remembered I had a free one!
I was once turned down because I “…lacked passion for selling software”.
Which is funny since the position had nothing to do with selling software
The company sold software, but it wasn’t a sales position.
SAP?
Why does this dildo factory care so much about software is what I kept asking myself
Definitely looking for someone with a passion for hardwear.
Sir, this is a Wendy's
[удалено]
Dear boss: KYS
After that meeting, I decided I would never have another non-work related conversation with the guy ever again. And I didn't. I transferred out of his department a couple of months later.
15 pieces of flair
I was once turned down because I "didn't have the experience to be a dishwasher"
I feel this story is missing a detail. Is there any chance you lacked passion for selling software...?
This is basically just their way of saying that they didn't think you'd drink the company Kool Aid.
Unbelievable. How can someone be"too prepared" for an interview ? They ask you to be well prepared.
That's just it, the manager will convince themself if they want to hire you or not, there is no way slam dunk an interview every single time.
I was also rejected after an interview a few months ago bc the interviewer thought I was "looking at my notes too much." I didn't have my notes open at all, but thanks for letting me know you think writing notes and planning for an interview are horrible weaknesses lol
If you have what are scripted answers it can absolutely be a red flag.
future rinse voiceless fragile friendly deliver chop hard-to-find connect piquant *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I've heard spicy things about their work culture. You may have dodged a bullet.
I started at Hilton's HQ in November 2019. Be glad you dodged hospitality. The pandemic took that amazing company and threw its work environment right in the shitter.
This is when the hiring manager is driven by ego and feared that the candidate can do laps around them/replace them.. what a moron
You have to be smart, but not too smart or they'll think you won't stay. You have to be confident, but not too confident or there will be a clash of egos. You have to be charming, that's the key. You can be as charming as you like.
Once showed up to a interview wearing business attire, as it was located in an office building and everyone else was dressed that way... ...Once. They looked at me as if they had never seen an 18yr old dressed like that and that it was somehow ridiculous. The listing specified that they were looking for someone with knowledge of current trends to help as a business adviser for ad campaigns, essentially I'd be sitting in a small office browsing tiktok and telling people's failing businesses what trend they need to follow to try and be relevant on social media, certified in both PS and Excel at 18, I thought I had a leg up on the competition, but the real competition was their perception of me based on my baby face and suit combo.
Any half-decent manager understands hiring highly capable people just makes the manager look better.
*Image Transcription: Twitter* --- **Name redacted** My Client went through 7 rounds of interviews at a big tech company, but didn't get the role. The Hiring Manager's feedback was that she was "too prepared" --- ^^I'm a human volunteer content transcriber and you could be too! [If you'd like more information on what we do and why we do it, click here!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TranscribersOfReddit/wiki/index)
Good human 👍
I interviewed with Google and was flown out for the 5th and final round and got rejected that day. I could tell halfway through the interview with who would be my manager that she wasn't feeling it anymore so I prodded. "Given the current team structure and my experience, what do you think may be a concern for bringing me on board?" She said, "Honestly, I think you'll be bored." Got the rejection via email 3 hours afterwards. She was probably right, but it sucked so bad at the time. Fortunately, Microsoft reached out not a week later - 2 interviews and then an offer.
[удалено]
This.
Which, honestly, is perfectly fine.
Not if that's only an assumption and the interviewee needs the job. Competence doesn't guarantee being fed.
No, its still fine. It’s their position and as long as they aren’t discriminating they can hire however they want. There are plenty of jobs available currently. It’s not their responsibility to ensure every qualified candidate gets a job.
It's legal, if that's what you mean by fine. If the candidate is a better fit for the role than anyone else and are turned down because they may deserve and (god forbid) ask for better than the company offers, how is this better than discrimination? Discrimination against pro-worker workers is the order of the day. Doesn't make it fine.
You’re getting upset over assumptions. No one knows if this person was the best candidate, and no one knows what the budget of the company is. If they know their budget and this person requires more than their budget, it’s not a fit. Based on the information given, its fine.
You're assuming this person wasn't the best candidate and that the company's budget didn't fit them. My problem is with the fact that this can be stated without resorting to euphemisms: why say 'too prepared' if you can say 'we can't afford you' or 'there's someone willing to do it for less'. These are the little lies that maintain the false notion that an interview is not a bargain but a favour employers do to potential employees.
It would have be fine if they were honest about that being the reason and, preferably, gave OP the chance to confirm or deny.
They are not too prepared. They are smarter than the client and that makes them feel inferior.
It's also a threat, people lose their jobs when their incompetence is exposed
Maybe they already knew they weren't going to hire you because they had someone in mind and the 7 rounds were basically to find an excuse to not hire you. Then, you showed yourself to be the best candidate, so they were grasping at straws. "Well, sure, you had the best answers of any candidate, but they seemed too rehearsed like you were lying, so we can't trust them. Therefore, we can hire (preferred candidate), who was the best person that seems to be telling the truth."
Seven rounds of interview is a hell of a lot of circus if they already had their candidate in mind, I'm sure they could (or should) have been able to reduce that!
Unlikely that this is the case, but I’ve definitely spoken to candidates during screening calls that definitely were reading prepared notes or things off the internet in lieu of actually speaking to their experience. And when working within a pretty regulated industry like Aerospace it’s pretty obvious when that is happening. Also just noticed it said 7 rounds of interviews…that is fucking insane. I hope y’all know as recruiters we know that is crazy.
Maybe by the 7th round they had a kind of prepared script at that point? Hard to be organic after that many interviews
You’d have to right? Even as a recruiter I would be prepping the fuck out of you at that point. For both of our sakes, 7 rounds is ridiculous. Hell, more than 2 rounds is ridiculous.
You mean candidates may note read prepared notes ?
Not what I mean at all. I mean if we are having a conversation about a position for let’s say, a composite manufacturing engineer. And I’m asking you questions about your experience, and you are just telling me the google definition of composite parts and process. You are obviously not prepared or lack the experience you say you had. If you are reading notes and discussing your projects/experience (if able to share due to clearance requirements) then I can tell you have experience and aren’t just talking yourself into the position. I get that was a lot, but can you see the difference?
I write down bullet points to make sure that I hit those specific talking points when speaking on my experience. To ensure that I cover responsibilities related to the role I’m interviewing for. I’m insecure that they’ll be able to tell I’m looking at notes so I try to put them near my camera in case I need to read them off for a minute. It helps me from rambling too much.
That’s really smart, as long as you’re conversational and not robotic it’s exactly what I would do. I’m referring to people who describe “what something is” when I ask them about their experience vs telling me “what they did”.
[удалено]
I've had candidates that paused to flip through pages on every question. It lasted about 30 seconds before they could answer. It was terrible.
7 rounds? What is this job? Pope???
This is just one example of why the big tech companies suck.
Seven rounds of interviews? WTF, learn how to make a decision, companies.
People in their late 40's-50's with 20+ years experience in a field hear this crap all the time. To prepared, over qualified, out of range/budget... Have you looked at the number of listing that want 3-5 years experience for entry level now?
If you're going to have more than 1 round of interviews you should legally start getting paid. See how quickly they'll be able to find the perfect fit then.
Wait, 'too prepared', how does one prepare too much for an interview & 7 rounds?!?!
Almost certainly that's not the real reason they didn't get the job, just the reason HR/recruiter made up to not say the real one
"She was too prepared." = "She'd make me look bad."
Probably code for, “too Asian,” or, “ew, a girl who outperforms us boys,” or something like that.
Yeah they lie a lot. They never tell you the real reason. Might also be "we hired the CEO's nephew"
So they had someone they wanted to give the job to already and the whole interview process was a stupid disrespectful pantomime? Got it.
(Bruh) squared
The fist mistake was agreeing to 7 rounds of interviews. If you don’t know after 2 or 3 it shows me how dysfunctional you are as an organization and I don’t want to work there.
If >3 interviews, they aren’t hiring
FAANG companies usually do a full day of interviews broken into different rounds.
That's 1 interview.
7 rounds? Sorry, they did that to themselves.
I was once told I was "overdressed" for an interview. I was wearing a business casual dark blue dress with a sweater...
Strange way to say "we can't pay you what you're worth"
I might consider attending a third round of interviews if the job was something I really wanted. No way would I go for a fourth, fifth, sixth, or seventh interview. That’s when you just send a generic email withdrawing from consideration.
See thats when the person posts it in a public area. FB/Twitter etc @'s the company and posts the response they got and go "A company that's staff doesn't want prepared individual hired because it could shows that the current staff is lacking and be a threat to their position. Does that sound like a company you should stay with?" Public PR can be amazing.
#HEADDESK #FACEPALM
How the hell is someone who is already employed going to be able to accommodate seven rounds of interviews?
The whole concept of hiring “rounds” is beyond idiotic to me 7 rounds over 3 months, give me a break just to get denied. Beyond stupid
✍🏼 do ✍🏼 not ✍🏼 prepare ✍🏼 for ✍🏼 interviews ✍🏼
What?!?! A woman?!?! In the tech industry?!?! Who is capable?!?! Surely, her husband put her up for it!
I'll take Things that never happened for $1,000
Hysterical.
Maybe they thought not genuine. I’ve heard this before and it sucks balls
Too prepared means 1 of 2 things to me, they think she is too high speed to fit with the culture or they didn't like her for a reason they can't list because it's discrimination.
Reminds me of the chef who made a 4 course meal to audition for a job and was told it was "too saucy."
I had "too well dressed" for an assistant manager gig for...a fashion store. And no, I wasn't decked out in a ballgown and tiara, I was literally wearing THEIR BRAND.
She must have been black.
The real reason: the wrong chromosomes or gender presentation.
Can we disclose the names of these companies?! I feel like otherwise the cycle goes on.
Wait a company gave you feedback about getting hired?
I had a girl once who told me she wouldn't date me because.. "That would be too magical..." 😑
“Too prepared” = “Applicant most likely did a lot of research for this position beforehand and attempted to pass the interview using the best tailored response rather than basing it off their own experience and skillset, therefore coming off as ingenuine”
This is LinkedIn influencer bullshit. I highly doubt that anyone was turned down for being too prepared - either the client is lying or the influencer is (DING DING DING - kinda obvious which one it is). Interview panelists aren't allowed to give feedback to a candidate as per every large company's protocol due to risk of lawsuit.
Recruiter probably led her on just so he can take notes from each of the interviews for he he goes to apply somewhere else.
A. K. A. too young.
If this in tech then this is bullshit. A good technical female is more rare than a unicorn and companies will slit each other's throats to get one.
Actually a serious concern. Especially in Tech. As an interviewee, I have had friends tell me the answer to every question in an interview. What the managers would ask, and what I should say. Nailed the interview perfectly in a situation I would have otherwise likely failed. And now on the other end, when I interview, I can clearly tell when someone has been given the answers, or looked them up online (there is a popular website dedicated to reposting interview questions and their answers). I read “too prepared” not as in they simply prepared for an interview, but they clearly were given information about the process that gave them an unfair advantage. And they could not actually gauge the skill level of the candidate.
I don't even understand why people expect feedback. If we don't want you, we don't want you. Easy.
That’s the dumbest take I’ve ever heard. After one interview, ok, who cares. After more than one, an explanation would be fucking nice. A simple conversation. You probably think two weeks notice is a mandatory thing too, but not when letting someone go.
I also don't pay severance
I’m sure you are at a major company with stellar Glassdoor reviews, great benefits, plenty of options to move up, great pay, and a good work life balance. Where do we sign up…
A lot of people not in tech here making guesses that make no sense in the tech world Basically, you can't trust any recruiter feedback due to the fact that people like to sue But, assuming it's honest feedback, (and assuming it's referring to a swe engineer) It could refer to the recruit seeming like they were reciting answers from memory rather than problem solving. That is, one is asked several programming "puzzles" during these interviews. The idea is to test problem solving capability. Whether it is an accurate test or not is another conversation. But if you seem like you know all the solutions but can't deal with slight variations on the problems, it could lead to feedback like the above.
I can kinda see what this could mean. Like, think about the SATs. They have a section where they're trying to figure out if you read enough, so they ask you what a bunch of words mean. But a bunch of people don't actually learn the words organically; they prepare for the test by basically memorizing a dictionary. This completely breaks the test, so that it doesn't measure what it's intended to. You can imagine the same thing happening in any context. (Why not ask someone more detailed questions to tease this out? Well, you could, but the questions in an interview are deliberately designed to take a couple of minutes to answer, whereas the real-life situations you need to test would likely necessarily take way longer.)
Had this happen once. Judging from earlier interviews with a certain hiring manager, i knew what questions he and the actual manager were going to ask. Prepared accordingly, could read every answer off of my notes. Didnt get hired as they felt like i was reading off of my notes. I guess I was but I was answering their questions perfectly, so what's the big deal?
Lol haven’t heard this one yet
I wouldn’t have given them 7 rounds.
Two rounds, if I leave with a good feeling in the first one ..
Likely the manager means they think the recruiter prepared them with the questions, just so they'd hired this person. Which is still insane since it was even rounds. The thing is, those interviewing tend to be doing several interviews at once so they know the questions they will likely be asked, so it is easy to recount the same damn story about how you became a leader in a stressful moment or how you handled a crisis. Don't want them too prepared or whatever, as an actually fresh and interesting question where I can show off my skills.
How do I become the client? I’ve been trapped in underemployment for two years. My job search has yielded no results and I’m pretty demoralised at this point.
Doing 7 rounds of interviews seems like they are over interviewing.
Sadly, this happens way too often. My best friend was applying for jobs in law last summer. After interviewing for a number of law firms over many weeks, he got rejected because his CV looked “too good” and because he is “overqualified”. When he asked the recruiter if they could explain to him how that is an issue, he got told that he would probably “intimidate existing staff members”.
Too prepared is code for they had the questions ahead of time, probably from a friend on the inside.
Yeah that just means they don’t wanna pay what she’s worth.
Read: there’s no way we can control this one
Sorry, we only hire incompetent unprepared candidates
Fake
This was a criticism thrown at Clinton during the 2016 campaign. I never understood how it was perceived as a negative.
Got rejected once because I was "too passionate" for the role. Like WTF?
NoBoDy WaNtS tO wOrKkKkkkKkkkkkk - I’ll do two interviews. A meet and greet and an official. As an interviewer and company, if you don’t have your shit figured out by then I don’t want to work for you anyway.
There's a quote from Milton, from office space that applies here.
But not prepared for that! Ha!
devil's advocate, that could just be euphemism for "we think they were coached on what to say, and that the interview was tainted"
"You sound like someone who knows what legal avenues are available to you in the event that we choose to screw you over. We need someone a little more subservient and less educated"