I just wrapped up a nine-month job search, and now that it's over I can say definitively that this has been the strangest job hunt of my life. And for someone my age I've done a fair amount of looking for work—not only because I've changed fields and moved, but also because even when I have a job I'm usually looking for the next one, or thinking about it.
In my previous experience, which includes a seven-month-long job search after graduate school, it is extremely unusual to get an in-person interview without being a serious contender for the job. The whole seven months I was looking for a job after grad school I probably submitted a hundred applications. In total I had four interviews and got two job offers. After college I had three interviews over about four months, and one offer. And a couple years ago I went on just two interviews before I got an offer. That's a pretty high success rate per interview, which is not just because I'm awesome. It's also because no one was going to waste their time (and mine!) interviewing multiple candidates who weren't a good fit. Historically, any time I got an interview (which was fairly rare!) I had a pretty good chance of getting the job.
This time around, however, I interviewed for nine positions before I got an offer. And some of those interview processes included multiple in-person meetings and a phone screening. Altogether I had 16 (!!!) separate interviews. That doesn't even include the multiple "assignments" I completed as part of these interviews. (All of which were ridiculous, btw—next time someone asks me to do an assignment I plan to bow out of consideration immediately.) Interviewing has basically been an unpaid part-time job for me during these last few months.
I've thought a lot about whether getting more interviews made this experience easier or harder—would I really rather have applied to the same number of jobs but gotten only a couple interviews in the same time frame? On the one hand, you've got the positive feedback of getting an interview every month or so, which can feel like progress when you're unemployed, and on the other hand, you've got radio silence, but at least you know that when you do get an interview you've got a good chance of getting the job. I've decided the second option is definitely better. Being rejected, especially after multiple interviews (and for jobs you are absolutely qualified for) makes it feel real personal. After a while you start dreading interviews because you're not sure they see you as a serious candidate and you don't want to spend hours getting invested in the job only to be rejected again. Getting no response to an application is a lot easier to brush off.
Also, infuriatingly, interviewers would often heavily imply that I was a finalist, asking about when I could start, whether I had any other pending offers, and otherwise openly trying to sell me on the position. I even had one interviewer reply to my post-interview thank you note telling me how impressed the hiring committee was and what a great colleague I would be. I had my references checked twice! And I got not a single job offer from any of these idiots!
And please note that I say all this as a weird person who kind of enjoys interviews. I like meeting people and learning about their work and talking about what I've done. I have a very healthy ego and rarely take rejection personally. Someone else would probably have had a meltdown about four months into this process.
I'm sure some of the strangeness of this job hunt can be chalked up to the fact that I now live in a much smaller job market with a single dominant employer, which no doubt creates all sorts of inefficiencies that would never exist in a larger city with more companies competing for labor. Whatever the reason, this was unlike anything I've experienced before, and, please please please, may I never experience anything like it ever again.
In my previous experience, which includes a seven-month-long job search after graduate school, it is extremely unusual to get an in-person interview without being a serious contender for the job. The whole seven months I was looking for a job after grad school I probably submitted a hundred applications. In total I had four interviews and got two job offers. After college I had three interviews over about four months, and one offer. And a couple years ago I went on just two interviews before I got an offer. That's a pretty high success rate per interview, which is not just because I'm awesome. It's also because no one was going to waste their time (and mine!) interviewing multiple candidates who weren't a good fit. Historically, any time I got an interview (which was fairly rare!) I had a pretty good chance of getting the job.
This time around, however, I interviewed for nine positions before I got an offer. And some of those interview processes included multiple in-person meetings and a phone screening. Altogether I had 16 (!!!) separate interviews. That doesn't even include the multiple "assignments" I completed as part of these interviews. (All of which were ridiculous, btw—next time someone asks me to do an assignment I plan to bow out of consideration immediately.) Interviewing has basically been an unpaid part-time job for me during these last few months.
I've thought a lot about whether getting more interviews made this experience easier or harder—would I really rather have applied to the same number of jobs but gotten only a couple interviews in the same time frame? On the one hand, you've got the positive feedback of getting an interview every month or so, which can feel like progress when you're unemployed, and on the other hand, you've got radio silence, but at least you know that when you do get an interview you've got a good chance of getting the job. I've decided the second option is definitely better. Being rejected, especially after multiple interviews (and for jobs you are absolutely qualified for) makes it feel real personal. After a while you start dreading interviews because you're not sure they see you as a serious candidate and you don't want to spend hours getting invested in the job only to be rejected again. Getting no response to an application is a lot easier to brush off.
Also, infuriatingly, interviewers would often heavily imply that I was a finalist, asking about when I could start, whether I had any other pending offers, and otherwise openly trying to sell me on the position. I even had one interviewer reply to my post-interview thank you note telling me how impressed the hiring committee was and what a great colleague I would be. I had my references checked twice! And I got not a single job offer from any of these idiots!
And please note that I say all this as a weird person who kind of enjoys interviews. I like meeting people and learning about their work and talking about what I've done. I have a very healthy ego and rarely take rejection personally. Someone else would probably have had a meltdown about four months into this process.
I'm sure some of the strangeness of this job hunt can be chalked up to the fact that I now live in a much smaller job market with a single dominant employer, which no doubt creates all sorts of inefficiencies that would never exist in a larger city with more companies competing for labor. Whatever the reason, this was unlike anything I've experienced before, and, please please please, may I never experience anything like it ever again.
