No response asking for feedback after receiving rejection interview email
Hello, I'm just curious if anyone has conducted interviews and provided feedback when asked after a candidate was not moved on to the next round? So far, I've asked 6-7 different interviewers at different firms, and I've only received one response about how it’s an extremely competitive hiring environment, and the odds are very tough for everyone. Is there a reason why interviewers wouldn’t want to provide feedback so candidates can improve?
Many employees are not able to provide direct feedback to candidates due to the confidentiality and the firm being liable. Also, very unlikely an Associate will tell you it's because you did not know how to calculate FCF or you came off as socially awkward. They will give you a generic answer similar to what you recieved. It is nothing personal and best to be self-aware when moving onto the next opportunity.
So is there no point in asking?
No none at all, best to move on. We’re all probably going to get a lot more rejections so best to apply elsewhere to better our chances
Can't hurt.
I actually did have one HR mention they really liked me but my technical were not what they were looking for. Another smaller buyside firm mentioned I needed to improve on case studies and suggested a very helpful book to practice.
Literally 0 point in asking. People who are capable of receiving an offer /break into IB should have enough self awareness to understand what went wrong instead of asking feedback. You think these interviewers are engaged and tracking every little thing you say? No they got pulled in during their busy day and most dont even take it that seriously.
In general when interviewing the decision often just comes down to "I liked talking to the other guy better than you". Not much feedback you can give in that situation other than generic stuff. Unless it's something very tangible like missing technicals the only other real reason is they thought someone else would be a better "fit" and it's somewhat awkward to explain that to a candidate outside of saying things like "competitive hiring environment" or "more experienced candidates"
Is moving on and ultimately receiving an offer purely luck-based? Clearly, there are things that candidates can control, such as answering technical questions correctly. However, the entire concept of "fit" seems to be inherently subjective. It seems like getting an offer compared to someone else doesn't necessarily mean they did a better job, but rather they were lucky the interviewer liked them better. I don't know, I might be ranting right now. But the more interviews I do, the more I believe I have little control over whether I get an offer, regardless of how well I perform.
I don't think it's luck per se, but I do agree with you that the "best" candidate doesn't always get the job because the interviewer liked the other person better. It's the same reason people tend to prefer to hire their friends or people from their college because they have that connection. For me at least when I changed my interview style from worrying about whether I gave the "right" answer to a fit question to trying to build a connection / be likable to the interviewer things started to go well for me... Trying to flip it to where an interview feels more like a conversation was helpful for me.
It's a liability for firms to provide feedback so as others are saying, most firms simply won't respond and I personally wouldn't ask as you really will not receive anything.
You should have some idea of what you did wrong - even when you get the job no superday goes 1000% perfectly.
Blanditiis veniam sunt ipsum quos voluptate. Et eos vitae et recusandae fuga exercitationem. Quis amet ea praesentium natus et ipsa.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...