So - we're looking for a couple of fresh-out-of-school Mechanical Engineers to bring into the company and gradually be trained to do a lot of the design work that the President currently handles as Chief Engineer (so he go out and sell more).

Things that stand out...


1) It was almost as if the roles were reversed - The interviewers felt like they spent more time selling the company than the interviewee spent selling his/herself.
2) Of the 12 interviewed on campus, only two sent thank you notes.
3) Those two were invited for an on-site interview. Neither sent a message of thanks.

Is that the new "I'm not interested"?

Is there a sense of entitlement such that the interviewees expect the company to chase them?

What are your experiences with fresh-out-of-college types?

Probably a good chance they just don't understand business ettiquette. Just look at what passes as acceptable behavior in today's society.

However, there's also the issue that it is very difficult to find good people today, so companies do need to do more selling than before. People have higher expectations of companies than they used to, partially because they know the companies will dump them in a heartbeat for a quick impact on the stock price.

Economics ... supply and demand. If I were to go back inside a company as an employee I would certainly demand a lot more than what I accepted in the past. My view is that I would not work FOR the company (or a boss), I would work WITH them. No hierarchy, just a contractual agreement.

So - we're looking for a couple of fresh-out-of-school Mechanical Engineers ......

What are your experiences with fresh-out-of-college types?

We have found a couple of good young 'uns, mostly by word of mouth. People we do business with on a regular basis with a kid just out of college.

:topic: a bit. Most ME programs do not require drafting as a degree requirmenet, so you will have to invest some time teaching them how to read and create drawings.

Not to sound wishy-washy or anything, but you really haven't given us enough information about the process you folks went through to schedule on-campus interviews (same school or different schools?)

I recall once being a keynote speaker at a college during the same week a number of companies were conducting on-campus interviews of seniors.

As I sat in the student union, gathering "local flavor" to strew throughout my presentation, I heard some of the following:

"What a waste of time! The schmuck isn't from the department where I would work and he knew nothing about what a typical workday would be like. Why did they bother sending anyone?"

"All the guy did was look at my resume, read a line out loud and say, "Is that right?"

"The guy tried so hard to sell me on what a great place it was to work, but he never asked me anything to determine whether I could or would fit in. Any time I asked a question, he never gave me a direct answer. What's with that?"

"I only went because one of my friends said I should get some experience interviewing with companies where I didn't want to work, so if I goofed up, I wouldn't ruin my chances at a place I wanted to work."

"When I asked about advancement opportunities, the guy said, 'Aren't you getting ahead of yourself? You haven't even been offered the job!' What a schmuck! I couldn't get out of there fast enough."

"All the jerk did was look at my boobs. Never once did he look me in the eye!" [this was NOT a Pamela Anderson or Dolly Parton clone!]


FWIW:
Interviewing college students requires ADVANCE PREPARATION by BOTH student and interviewer. My main impression from a number of campuses over the last three years was that most of the interviewers merely "winged it" and had not looked at resumes in advance nor really boned up on the scope of the duties of the position offered. Ill-prepared, they wasted the opportunity to determine how the student might really fit into the organization and whether he would be a good fit. The students were even worse at preparation and were content to have only a one-paragraph description of an interviewer's company which was supplied by the college placement office. Ill-prepared, they were unable to ask meaningful questions and show enthusiasm for a company they knew little about. Worst of all were the placement office staff, who were aiming for "numbers of interviewers" and "number of interviewees" without any regard to the quality of the interview or the results in terms of jobs offered and accepted. They sure had bad information on what constituted "meaningful metrics."

Wes's bottom line:
In my opinion, a lot more conversation and correspondence should take place BEFORE the face-to-face interview. During the interview, BOTH sides should be employing what sales folk call a "trial close" to determine if the other side is still interested, needs more information, or is ready to make a purchase decision right then.

Folks untrained in selling often "oversell" themselves out of an otherwise closed sale because the other side got bored waiting while the salesperson kept rattling off benefits the prospect wasn't interested in. In a job interview, this holds true for both interviewer AND interviewee.

I just got two resumes that were deplorable. Well, OK they were just bad; they at least could spell correctly.

In looking at one, I cannot tell you what they did over the course of their lives. One of them is a 1/2 page, and what is there has very little information. Instead of selling me on themselves, I am working to find useful information in it. They need to be completely re-written.

I certainly hate to burden our education system :sarcasm:, but could they spend some minimal time helping people learn to write resumes, make calls, follow-up, send a thank you note, etc.?

I just got two resumes that were deplorable. Well, OK they were just bad; they at least could spell correctly.

In looking at one, I cannot tell you what they did over the course of their lives. One of them is a 1/2 page, and what is there has very little information. Instead of selling me on themselves, I am working to find useful information in it. They need to be completely re-written.

I certainly hate to burden our education system :sarcasm:, but could they spend some minimal time helping people learn to write resumes, make calls, follow-up, send a thank you note, etc.?

I had a course at Georgia College (now Georgia College and State University) that I believe was a requirement. The class, Business Communications, was one I had put off because it would be boring, a waste of time, etc.

I still use some of the things I learned almost every day. Why such a class is not a universal requirement is beyond me.

Someone who is a business genius that has trouble communicating their expertise is in for some rough traveling.

I just got two resumes that were deplorable. Well, OK they were just bad; they at least could spell correctly.

In looking at one, I cannot tell you what they did over the course of their lives. One of them is a 1/2 page, and what is there has very little information. Instead of selling me on themselves, I am working to find useful information in it. They need to be completely re-written.

I certainly hate to burden our education system :sarcasm:, but could they spend some minimal time helping people learn to write resumes, make calls, follow-up, send a thank you note, etc.?Where I went (graduated four years ago) the student had to go to Student Services. If they didn't go, they left without being made aware of what's expected in the hiring process.

I've heard it said that people who send the thank you notes are in the tiny minority. That was good enough reason for me to be sure and send one.

IMO, What Wes has described is a turnaround from the days when young people were glad to just get a place to work. Now the good ones are more discriminating, tending to be more interested in how fulfilling their work will be. The ones who will be truly engaged in their work will be more likely to talk like Wes has described, showing little tolerance for the employment status quo. Those with less spirit may have been too timid to press issues or even speak an a way that wasn't a direct answer to a question.

So, Scott, that may have been the case in your young interviewees. They may have felt uninspired or were just brickheaded. Hard to tell from here.

I realize the OP of this thread is referring to college grads, but I would like to ask what ever happened to DECA clubs/associations in the American high schools? (DECA=Distributive Education Clubs of America) When I was in high school, this was a great class to take. The DECA teachers worked with local businesses and employers to secure part-time jobs for DECA students so they could learn and earn, so to speak. The students who were serious about DECA took away much more from the whole "work/school experience". We learned about how to interview, sending the thank-you follow-up, how to count back change (hey, don't laugh, you might be surprised to see how many kids at fast-food places and other businesses don't do this! :mg:), and much about the whole business world. I'm appalled at how rude young workers are these days, and how my DECA teachers would have chewed us up and spit us out had any of us behaved so while under their tutelage. :whip:

The DECA, VICA and FBLA (as they were known back then) clubs were things that kids wanted to join and participate in. To this day, I am deeply grateful for the business etiquette and other fundamentals my DECA teachers instilled in me during my teenage years because these things have become a part of who I am as an employee. I just cringe when I walk into a store and see the cashier talking on the phone, ignoring everything and everyone else around them, continuing the conversation throughout the entire check-out process. :mg: :mad::mad::mad:

Sorry, I guess I'll step down from my :soap: now. :o

Not to sound wishy-washy or anything, but you really haven't given us enough information about the process you folks went through to schedule on-campus interviews (same school or different schools?)

I recall once being a keynote speaker at a college during the same week a number of companies were conducting on-campus interviews of seniors.

As I sat in the student union, gathering "local flavor" to strew throughout my presentation, I heard some of the following:

"What a waste of time! The schmuck isn't from the department where I would work and he knew nothing about what a typical workday would be like. Why did they bother sending anyone?"

"All the guy did was look at my resume, read a line out loud and say, "Is that right?"

"The guy tried so hard to sell me on what a great place it was to work, but he never asked me anything to determine whether I could or would fit in. Any time I asked a question, he never gave me a direct answer. What's with that?"

"I only went because one of my friends said I should get some experience interviewing with companies where I didn't want to work, so if I goofed up, I wouldn't ruin my chances at a place I wanted to work."

"When I asked about advancement opportunities, the guy said, 'Aren't you getting ahead of yourself? You haven't even been offered the job!' What a schmuck! I couldn't get out of there fast enough."

"All the jerk did was look at my boobs. Never once did he look me in the eye!" [this was NOT a Pamela Anderson or Dolly Parton clone!]


FWIW:
Interviewing college students requires ADVANCE PREPARATION by BOTH student and interviewer. My main impression from a number of campuses over the last three years was that most of the interviewers merely "winged it" and had not looked at resumes in advance nor really boned up on the scope of the duties of the position offered. Ill-prepared, they wasted the opportunity to determine how the student might really fit into the organization and whether he would be a good fit. The students were even worse at preparation and were content to have only a one-paragraph description of an interviewer's company which was supplied by the college placement office. Ill-prepared, they were unable to ask meaningful questions and show enthusiasm for a company they knew little about. Worst of all were the placement office staff, who were aiming for "numbers of interviewers" and "number of interviewees" without any regard to the quality of the interview or the results in terms of jobs offered and accepted. They sure had bad information on what constituted "meaningful metrics."

Wes's bottom line:
In my opinion, a lot more conversation and correspondence should take place BEFORE the face-to-face interview. During the interview, BOTH sides should be employing what sales folk call a "trial close" to determine if the other side is still interested, needs more information, or is ready to make a purchase decision right then.

Folks untrained in selling often "oversell" themselves out of an otherwise closed sale because the other side got bored waiting while the salesperson kept rattling off benefits the prospect wasn't interested in. In a job interview, this holds true for both interviewer AND interviewee.


OK - good points.

I was not there on the campus interviews. They have been done at two locations so far - NJIT and Rutgers. The on-site interviewers were the President (and Chief Engineer) and VP - the two main stakeholders in the process. The people would report to the President in his capacity of Chief Engineer. I can't say how well prepared they were on interview day. I helped them flesh out what they are looking for beforehand.

I participated with the on-site interviews. The views above were from the other interviewers. I personally didn't see much difference between these and any other interviews I've done. Except for the lack of a "thank you" email or call.