Unemployable?

[Mr T.]

Unemployable
(Filed: 02/08/2004)


The Razor
The Nerd
The Iffy
The Non-starter

The Razor

Academically able but far too sharp for their own good. Too pushy and over-the-top, they like the sound of their own voice, dominate the conversation, try too hard to impress and have to win at any cost. They are arrogant, abrupt, patronising, opinionated, over-bearing - and "should go into politics".



The Nerd

Likely to have studied maths and astrophysics at Cambridge.

They are obsessive and spend their time playing computer games, writing programs and e-mailing like-minded. Lacking in social skills and commercial savvy, they won't function in a team.



The Iffy

Has clear strengths - being personable, often clever - but not across the board. They appear initially plausible but don't add up to much. They tend to waffle and lack substance, 'horse power', commitment and business awareness.

Employers see flashes of what they are looking for, but The Iffy is not sufficiently 'oven-ready'.



The Non-starter

They are out of their depth - 'not at the races'. They were never serious contenders, and should never have been invited to the assessment centre in the first place.

[Finless]

Nerdiffy :o - not even a proper one of them. Sigh.

[Ian@1904]

The serial
Hops from role to role usually within the space of a year, and prior to up coming reviews.
Always has excellent answers for leaving roles

[Mr T.]

An interviewer's guide
(Filed: 02/08/2004)


As a new study demonstrates, grade inflation is no longer just a problem for universities. With more than a fifth of A-levels awarded now receiving A grades (more than double the proportion in 1989), over half of all graduates gaining at least a 2:1, and a government policy of squeezing 50 per cent of school leavers into further education, employers are increasingly filtering candidates according to non-academic criteria.

Students, wise to this fact, are decorating their CVs with a wealth of extra-curricular activities, to the extent that exotic travel, internships and voluntary work are now almost a sine qua non for the successful candidate. While no one should discourage them from such strenuous self-improvement, we are rapidly approaching the logical conclusion of such demands: in 10 years' time, employers will be hard pressed to find an applicant who does not claim to have retraced the Silk Road on a unicycle, or helped to found El Salvador's space programme.

On paper at least, distinguishing between genuine and dubious claims is already a nightmare, given the sheer volume of apparently impressive candidates. Hence the vital importance of the face-to-face interview, whatever the practical difficulties. No other method allows one to identify those graduates whose talents actually match their CVs, and to puncture the pretensions of those chancers whose extravagant claims would make an Alastair Campbell blush.