The Worst Interview Question

[jjfz3000]

Which one of the above is the worst or most useless interview question and why?

I would probably say it's the one asking for your weaknesses. The employer wants to know if the candidate's weaknesses would affect the job, but obviously no one would ever use a weakness that's relevant to the job. I would probably use ones like I have a poor understanding of the existence of anti-matter.


All of those questions are good at finding out poor candidates, but you can't find out who's qualified.


EDIT: My definition of "worst interview question" is not the most difficult or strange, but one that doesn't reveal anything about the candidate.

Another danger is that asking questions which have "creative" answers make the interview too subjective. For example, I love playing chess, and if someone answers that he want to be the pawn since it has the potential to transform into other pieces then I would probably think it's pretty creative. But someone else might think he's a nerd and it would be a dull answer. But the problem is the interviewer is rarely the person's boss or co-worker so how would he know what kind of answer the boss would prefer?

[ullyeus]

Search funtion...and we have a careers section.

and it's a stupid question.

[45ED]

Which one of the above is the worst or most useless interview question and why?

I would probably say it's the one asking for your weaknesses. The employer wants to know if the candidate's weaknesses would affect the job, but obviously no one would ever use a weakness that's relevant to the job. I would probably use ones like I have a poor understanding of the existence of anti-matter.

All of those questions are good at finding out poor candidates, but you can't find out who's qualified.

I would say the worse interview question would be the one for which there is no apparent, viewable question. Because if there is no question asked/posted, there can be no answer given. And if someone expects you to answer a question you have no way of knowing, you're screwed. :lol:

But really, why are these contenders for the "Worst Interview Question" title? IMO, they're not really into your answer as much as they are into how you answer the question. That in tandem with what the answer is gives an employee a lot of stuff to work with when considering a candidate's potential as an employee.

[dealguy2]

All of the following are signs the interviewer is a douche bag:

1) What is one of your weaknesses?
2) Tell me about a difficult situation you've dealt with at work.
3) If you were an animal which one would you be?

When the economy was better I'd usually just wish them a good day after one of these bombs was dropped. Now I'd probably stay and just mutter the memorized responses like everyone else does. Why the hell do people waste their time with this crap?

[ullyeus]

All of the following are signs the interviewer is a douche bag:

1) What is one of your weaknesses?
2) Tell me about a difficult situation you've dealt with at work.
3) If you were an animal which one would you be?

When the economy was better I'd usually just wish them a good day after one of these bombs was dropped. Now I'd probably stay and just mutter the memorized responses like everyone else does. Why the hell do people waste their time with this crap?

??? I think this would and is a fantastic question that gives you real insight into a person and how they would deal with a situation...

[dealguy2]

??? I think this would and is a fantastic question that gives you real insight into a person and how they would deal with a situation...

This is the typical standard crap everyone gives the scripted answer to. If an interviewer asks me this I know for sure they're idiots and they don't take this seriously. You can tell from someone's resume if they can do the job. The purpose of the interview is to determine whether or not the resume is factual. After the interview if the person seems legit then you phone the references as a final check.

[tail_duck]

This is the typical standard crap everyone gives the scripted answer to. If an interviewer asks me this I know for sure they're idiots and they don't take this seriously. You can tell from someone's resume if they can do the job. The purpose of the interview is to determine whether or not the resume is factual. After the interview if the person seems legit then you phone the references as a final check.

All of the following are signs the interviewer is a douche bag:

1) What is one of your weaknesses?
2) Tell me about a difficult situation you've dealt with at work.
3) If you were an animal which one would you be?

When the economy was better I'd usually just wish them a good day after one of these bombs was dropped. Now I'd probably stay and just mutter the memorized responses like everyone else does. Why the hell do people waste their time with this crap?

You seem very naiive and narrow minded. I wonder who had the brains to hire you? Two out of your 3 handpicked questions are standard and are not stupid as they relate to job function. I totally agree with you on the animal question.

As for my answer to this poll: the soup option. All of the other questions? Anyone with a job should know the EXACT answer to all of the questions if you know how interviews work. For example, tell me about yourself can be redirected back to the interviewer 'personally or professionally'? Guaranteed 9/10 they'll say professionally where you retort your past experience leading up to qualification for the job you're being interviewed for.

[red120]

The worst interview question is the one you didn't anticipate.

Or, from the HR perspective, the best..

[Tig]

All of the following are signs the interviewer is a douche bag:

1) What is one of your weaknesses?
2) Tell me about a difficult situation you've dealt with at work.
3) If you were an animal which one would you be?

When the economy was better I'd usually just wish them a good day after one of these bombs was dropped. Now I'd probably stay and just mutter the memorized responses like everyone else does. Why the hell do people waste their time with this crap?

I've interviewed lots of people and asked #1 plenty of times. If someone walked out on me after facing that question then I would think that there is something seriously wrong with their head and be grateful that they never got the opportunity to go further into the interview process.

If they gave me a canned response, then that would tell me something as well. What you don't realize is that as a hiring manager, sometimes the manner in which you answer is more important than the answer itself. Sometimes I ask abstract questions and encourage the candidate to talk the solution out loud so that I can judge their problem solving techniques and cognitive thinking (I commonly pose a problem to them and ask how they would go about finding an answer). Other questions are designed to see how they handle stressful situations. I don't care about the asnwer, but instead trying to elicit a reaction that I can gauge. As far as the technical side is concerned (I hire developers), the content that I use and the way in which I structure my interviews, I will know your competency level within the first few minutes (I administer an oral test). The rest of the time, I am trying to figure out if you're a good fit for the team, if you're going to bail down the road. Heck, Ive even got questions designed to let me know how prone you are to ADD or if you can focus for extended periods of time without taking cigarette and coffee breaks every 30 minutes. And your answers will be judged based on verbal responses as well as non verbal cues. You're not doing yourself any favors by being naive.

Edit: Over the years, I've even had a few people look me in the eye and tell me that they have no weaknesses. Now, I like that answer because you've gotta have balls to give it and I love self assurrance. But I also know other hiring managers that will strike you out for something like that because they view it as arrogance. So it's a crapshoot.

[ullyeus]

This is the typical standard crap everyone gives the scripted answer to. If an interviewer asks me this I know for sure they're idiots and they don't take this seriously. You can tell from someone's resume if they can do the job. The purpose of the interview is to determine whether or not the resume is factual. After the interview if the person seems legit then you phone the references as a final check.

hmmm...well...you're wrong.

[chrome_dout]

hmmm...well...you're wrong.

+1

[BananaHunter]

If you think a question is stupid, chances are good that it's you who can't can't see the logic behind it. There are more naive candidates than there are dumb interviewers. Interviewers tend to be people from HR or managers who have demonstrated competence at work.

There are lots of traditional interview questions and a prepared candidate can give canned answers for them. Odd questions are good for testing your character. Without a prepared answer, the typical person will say whatever is on their mind.

Even if the question seems stupid, you should demonstrate that you can adapt. If you don't see the purpose behind the question, you should ask the interviewer to clarify.

By the "worst" question I think you should be asking about the most difficult.

[jjfz3000]

If you think a question is stupid, chances are good that it's you who can't can't see the logic behind it. There are more naive candidates than there are dumb interviewers. Interviewers tend to be people from HR or managers who have demonstrated competence at work.

There are lots of traditional interview questions and a prepared candidate can give canned answers for them. Odd questions are good for testing your character. Without a prepared answer, the typical person will say whatever is on their mind.

Even if the question seems stupid, you should demonstrate that you can adapt. If you don't see the purpose behind the question, you should ask the interviewer to clarify.

By the "worst" question I think you should be asking about the most difficult.

Well, traditional interviews don't work. Most interviews are now either behavourial or case-based. The first one basically asks you about how you handled a situation at your previous job. The second one presents a new case or scenario and asks the candidate to solve it.

The problem with questions above is that candidates are not going to reveal things that would compromise their chance of getting the job.

You can then argue, it's not the answer that counts it's the attitude or manner through which the candidate answers. But that doesn't make sense. People are nervous during interviews their attitude then doesn't reflect their attitude at their job.

How do you know the attitude of someone who's being monitored and scrutinized will be the same as when he/she has to do work without any supervision? I know a lot of shy people who are actually very nice and helpful friends. But other who seem very out-going are actually very manipulative and destructive, subtly.

EDIT: There are good and bad interviewers. Just because a doctor is a doctor doesn't mean she'll make no mistakes.

[molala]

I never encountered the:

If you were an animal/a can of soup/some other random object, which one would you be?

question.

[williamsauga]

Where do you see yourself in five years?

Its nobody's business!

[the_fm]

Its nobody's business!

lol.
i prefer to answer that question by using the weather analogy. just to poke fun of it :razz:
i don't know if it works but i get a couple of laughs

[pitz]

"Who is the person you most want to meet?"

[airodus]

I use some of those "worst" questions to judge the attitude or behavior of the candidate.

For example, the weakness question can have several outcomes:

1) They tell me a weakness that would affect their performance for this function. (honest, but stupid)

2) They relate a weakness that should have no effect on their performance (honest and smart)

3) They give one of those canned strengths as a weakness answers, like working too hard or whatever (evasive, but not stupid)

4) Tell me how they feel about the question (honest, strong, maybe some attitude depending on their tone)

5) They walk out on the interview (bad attitude)

I like to ask that particular question because I know it is a bad question. But I want to see how the candidate deals with a situation they don't like (chances are, you're gonna be asked to do some things you don't particularly want to do when working). And the best part about it is that it is disguised as just another stupid interview question, so many candidates don't actually respond all that well (#3 is very common believe it or not).

[pcpchan]

Although the weakness question is quite common in interviews, you can pull yourself into a positive attitude about it. No one REQUIRES you to answer a weakness that MUST related to the job.

For example, you can say something like my weakness is that I get impatience and anxious if my client does not provide me a response and waste my time because I like to be on top of schedule.

Sometime your weakness may not be a put you in a poor position in a job, but rather put you forward. Think smart when you answer

[CSR]

I hate behaviuor type questions because my answers are all canned and BS. While they are factual and based on my previous experiences, I do not believe that they reflect how I will behave in future situations.

The weakness question is the oldest "trick" in the book. Twist it around to show how you've recognized it is a weakness and what you've done to improve on it. Or identify a irrelevant weakness (sports, computers - if the job doesn't require it, mechanical stuff, poor hand writing), or one that shows your too something (perfect, eagar, enthusiastic, optimistic, friendly, patient, casual, etc.)

[Sepiraph]

The worst interview questions I got were both related to personal matter, the owner of the company was asking me about my family and religion preference-both big red flags. I was actually surprised someone would actually ask those type of questions.

I didn't get the job and I am glad for it.

[airodus]

I hate behaviuor type questions because my answers are all canned and BS. While they are factual and based on my previous experiences, I do not believe that they reflect how I will behave in future situations.

The weakness question is the oldest "trick" in the book. Twist it around to show how you've recognized it is a weakness and what you've done to improve on it. Or identify a irrelevant weakness (sports, computers - if the job doesn't require it, mechanical stuff, poor hand writing), or one that shows your too something (perfect, eagar, enthusiastic, optimistic, friendly, patient, casual, etc.)

As a business owner and knowing a decent amount of HR/headhunting/recruiting folk, all those answers you proposed are generally considered fluff and for some interviewers as automatic fails. The best 2 answers are:

1) Give an actual weakness that relates to this job. The honest, but stupid answer.

It's actually not that stupid unless it is a really bad, insurmountable problem (like they have a habit of assaulting their colleagues or something). Two of the greatest traits I look for are honesty and accountability. I just hired a C# programmer who told me he never ever touched C# when I asked this question. Sounds stupid, but I hired him anyways. A few programming books later and a little mentoring and he's one of our best developers.

The fact of the matter is that everyone has weaknesses. Everyone has a weakness relating to the job they are interviewing for. Even if you feel you are a strong candidate, you can at least pick an aspect that you can improve on (ie. Tiger Woods can still come up with a golf related weakness or aspect he wants to be better at). The point of this response is to be accountable for yourself, your performance and for your development. Skills can be learned and habits can be broken. However, honesty, humility and accountability and not easy to come by.

2) Refuse to answer the question for whatever reason (a good reason).

This one is tricky because depending on a bazillion different factors (your reason, your tone, your charisma, the job, the interviewer), you can either fail miserably or succeed brilliantly. This generally works better for leadership or high stress positions, where you need to demonstrate an ability to cut to the chase, be assertive and take no ****. Of course you should always be respectful of the interviewer and have a good attitude (offending your interviewer is always a bad idea).

===

So yes, the question is definitely one of the "oldest tricks in the book", and surprising still a very effective one.

[robattoronto]

I can usually answer any question they throw at me without hesitation. I'm a straight shooter. I guess its a given (due to the IT position I would go for and the company I choose to interview with) that they would ask intelligent questions. If they did ask a dumb one, I would just smile, give it a second and fire back a sarcastic answer. Cuz at that point I really could care less about the job anymore.

Usually the dumb questions comes from yeehaw, hotshot IT recruiter or smaller companies who thinks they're cool. They're just out to waste your time. I would not even care to work with dumb people. The big companies usually take things more seriously and don't stray from the norm.

[eastwood]

I really like the soup/animal question. Sounds a bit silly at first, but it really is just a way of seeing how you deal with something unexpected or on the fly. And also about your strengths, weaknesses and personality.

I'm a tin of Campbell's Chicken Noodle. A great, delicious and nourishing meal all by itself. But when a bigger meal is required there is always rice and veggies that can be added as well.

Ok, I need to work on that. :lol:

Anyway, silliest question I've ever been asked was during an interview for a job I already had. For some reason we all needed to come in and be reinterviewed. We were chatting and I said something about being well liked in the office. And with a stern look the department director asked me, "why would you think you are liked here?" I was stunned and I'm sure it showed. Said something about being liked professionally because I prepare myself for the job and make it a point to know even the most obscure information. My co-workers rely on me for information and advice and it is best to know the info and anticipate requests before being asked for it. I didn't get a real chance to get into the personal reasons. :razz:

[AudiDude]

Anyway, silliest question I've ever been asked was during an interview for a job I already had. For some reason we all needed to come in and be reinterviewed.

http://www.joystickdivision.com/OfficeSpace2.jpg


http://www.luminomagazine.com/2004.03/spotlight/officespace/images/tom/tom2.jpg

[tail_duck]

http://www.luminomagazine.com/2004.03/spotlight/officespace/images/tom/tom2.jpg

Gold.

"Tom Smykowski: Well-well look. I already told you: I deal with the god damn customers so the engineers don't have to. I have people skills; I am good at dealing with people. Can't you understand that? What the hell is wrong with you people????"

:D

[angekfire]

I almost want to go to an interview and answer each question as humourously as I can think of at the moment.

"What is your biggest weakness?"
"I guess it would be rock-paper-scissors. I always lose at that game."

"Where do you see yourself in 5 years?"
"On a rocketship headed for Mars" or "Dead, everyone knows the world is gunna end in 2012." (Obviously, second wouldn't be good, hah)

"If you were a soup, what soup would you be?"
"I wouldn't be a soup so much as a stew. Hardy, and satisfying."

"What kind of animal would you be?"
"A platypus. I unique and I've found a niche into which I fit well, and have adapted. Plus, they are pretty cool. Did you know they have venomous barbs?"

[AudiDude]

The truth that nobody would dare say.

Where do you see yourself in five years?

At a better company that pays more where I do less work or a position here that will give me the same results.

If you were an animal/a can of soup/some other random object, which one would you be?

What are you, an idiot?

What are your weaknesses?

Money, cars, electronic gadgets, fattening foods and hot women.

What in particular interested you about our company?

I heard you pay money for work and I can't survive in this country with no money.

What would your past managers say about you?

"I knew as soon as something better came along he'd be outta here like spit through a trumpet."

Tell me about yourself.

I like money and would like to get lots of it while spending minimal time at work so I can indulge myself.

Why should we hire you, above the other candidates?

Because I took the time out of my busy schedule to come down here and sit outside on that chair and wait like a six year old outside the principals office.

What do you think you can do for this company?

Become non contributing, invisible leach doing minimal work while drawing maximum pay.

[angekfire]

What in particular interested you about our company?

I heard you pay money for work and I can't survive in this country with no money.

So true though.

[Sylvestre]

So true though.

see, that's the thing, there's a lot of candidates out there who actually have a passion for a certain field of work, beyond the fact that it pays. Most of the posters here are university students who are still looking for that first post-school job. You'll be surprised at how many people who, after taking their first job because the company hired them, don't like the work and don't care for the field.

The question may seem obvious because, as the article said "I want to work here because you'll pay me" but, as any working stiff knows, there are jobs out there that people truly care for, and jobs that no amount of money could make enticing.

So before dismissing the question as bad, stop and think for a second if you were already getting a salary, would you actually want to take this new job? I actually tell new grads that when interviewing them and a lot are truly surprised when it's put in that perspective.

[jjfz3000]

see, that's the thing, there's a lot of candidates out there who actually have a passion for a certain field of work, beyond the fact that it pays. Most of the posters here are university students who are still looking for that first post-school job. You'll be surprised at how many people who, after taking their first job because the company hired them, don't like the work and don't care for the field.

The question may seem obvious because, as the article said "I want to work here because you'll pay me" but, as any working stiff knows, there are jobs out there that people truly care for, and jobs that no amount of money could make enticing.

So before dismissing the question as bad, stop and think for a second if you were already getting a salary, would you actually want to take this new job? I actually tell new grads that when interviewing them and a lot are truly surprised when it's put in that perspective.

Sorry, I don't understand your question. Basically, you're asking if I'm getting paid elsewhere or I don't have to worry about money, would I do this job for free? Hmmm.... probably not.

People have hobbies, but it becomes boring once you're forced to do it the way someone else wants.

Finally, I don't even see this as relevant. I don't think there are any statistics about liking a job and doing well at it. Use teachers as an example, some teachers are very effective but doesn't care about teaching. But they know their stuff and is good at communicating. But you have another teacher that loves teaching but doesn't have a clue about how students learn. I had a teacher who loves literature and does a lot of extra work to teach (make online forums, think of creative activities) but everyone hated her. Simply because we just wanted to know how to ace the AP test and we could care less about how Shakespeare chose his metaphors.

My story probably doesn't mean a lot, but I think it's unfair to presume that just because the candidate's doing it for the money he'll do a bad job.

[Krox]

My story probably doesn't mean a lot, but I think it's unfair to presume that just because the candidate's doing it for the money he'll do a bad job.

If you had two equally qualified people sitting in front of you, who would you choose. The candidate who loves the work or the one who just wants the paycheck? Sure everyone wants to get paid but some people actually want to get paid for something they enjoy doing.

[jjfz3000]

If you had two equally qualified people sitting in front of you, who would you choose. The candidate who loves the work or the one who just wants the paycheck? Sure everyone wants to get paid but some people actually want to get paid for something they enjoy doing.

Probably the one who "loves" the work since I can pay him less.

[Krox]

Probably the one who "loves" the work since I can pay him less.

Exactly, they would probably accept less money, put in more overtime and generally just work harder.

[AudiDude]

Probably the one who "loves" the work since I can pay him less.

I love my work, but after being forced to interact with people who only want the dollars, I want extra dollars for having to deal with them. Typically they are the worst people to work with and they only took whatever in school for the money. They have an attitude and think because they took whatever they did in school, they actually know what they are doing. They are not interested in seeing the results of their stupid ideas, and when they see that they fail, use others as scapegoats.

I do know what I am worth and will not grant access to skills that will make things better for the company unless I am compensted for that. If an employer underutilizes me, I just move on when I get bored. If they utilize me, then I get paid.

I already told my boss I am quitting when I get bored or quagmired in company bureaucracy which he goes out of his way to shield me from. One of the advantages of doing my job is that you are constantly visiting potential employers and establishing friendships with them.
They give you their cards and tell you "if you ever need a change..."

I always tell people if you want to see if a person knows they are useless or not, ask them what they do to deserve the level of pay they get. The people who are deserving serve up a quick volley of answers, the overpaid people or useless people, scared you will expose them, get angry and or violent.

[Sanhedralite]

Perhaps the answer is not important - but how you answer. Can you easily lie here? That tells me a lot about the rest of your interview then...
Do you answer such well-known sketchy questions with difficulty in pulling off a fake-tell-what-you-want-to-hear answer? That tells me you are a little more honest and you have integrity. In my experience though, the ability to speak the beaurocratic language - like an HR pro is helpful to getting the job. It's sad, but that's really what's expected in the average corporation now, the ability to BS will get you everywhere in life...

[Sylvestre]

Sorry, I don't understand your question. Basically, you're asking if I'm getting paid elsewhere or I don't have to worry about money, would I do this job for free? Hmmm.... probably not.

People have hobbies, but it becomes boring once you're forced to do it the way someone else wants.

Finally, I don't even see this as relevant. I don't think there are any statistics about liking a job and doing well at it. Use teachers as an example, some teachers are very effective but doesn't care about teaching. But they know their stuff and is good at communicating. But you have another teacher that loves teaching but doesn't have a clue about how students learn. I had a teacher who loves literature and does a lot of extra work to teach (make online forums, think of creative activities) but everyone hated her. Simply because we just wanted to know how to ace the AP test and we could care less about how Shakespeare chose his metaphors.

My story probably doesn't mean a lot, but I think it's unfair to presume that just because the candidate's doing it for the money he'll do a bad job.

no, what I'm saying is "if you had another job that was paying you the salary we are offering, would you actually take this job?"

and in no way am I saying that someone motivated by money will do a bad job, but someone motivated by passion will certainly care more and put more into his/her work. subtle but significant difference. And why are you implying that if someone loves a job he/she will accept less money to do it? At the end of the day, any intelligent person should know his/her self worth.

Again, a lot of people (especially fresh grads) pick jobs solely on paycheques but the fact remains that once you have some experience under your belt and are looking for more than a paycheque, the question as to "why do you want to work here" actually gives real insight. This only shows up when you deal with people who actually have real goals beyond simply securing employment.

Case in point, we hired a guy a couple yrs ago who applied while he was working in Spain. He had been working in our company's field for ~10yrs and specifically wanted to work with one of our best engineers because this engineer is world renowned in the field. The guy from Spain explained all of this and you could see he was passionate about mentoring under the engineer.

This isn't something you can BS unless you really knew and cared about a rather niche engineering field; and it's that type of thing that any employer loves to see. You know this guy will learn & excel far beyond a regular joe, and he'll take the company further because of it.

[nalababe]

Many are missing the point of interviews. Less than half of interviews have to actually reflect the position from a core competency point of view. These are very easy to ask and very easy to evaluate. But reality is that just finding a person that can do a job is very easy.

Finding the person that is the right fit for the corporate culture is far more difficult. For any one who has read Good to Great, you are looking to ensure that the "right" people are on the bus.

Seeing how people handle pressure, what they think of themselves, what they think of others...these are all key to determining if you have found the right person. Most of the questions in the list, depending on the answer, can provide insight into the person.

[airodus]

Doing the job is only a small part of working. Contributing to the work environment, contributing new ideas and taking pride and responsibility are also just as important (sometimes more).

That's what the "soft" questions try to ascertain (whether directly or indirectly).

[angekfire]

see, that's the thing, there's a lot of candidates out there who actually have a passion for a certain field of work, beyond the fact that it pays. Most of the posters here are university students who are still looking for that first post-school job. You'll be surprised at how many people who, after taking their first job because the company hired them, don't like the work and don't care for the field.

The question may seem obvious because, as the article said "I want to work here because you'll pay me" but, as any working stiff knows, there are jobs out there that people truly care for, and jobs that no amount of money could make enticing.

So before dismissing the question as bad, stop and think for a second if you were already getting a salary, would you actually want to take this new job? I actually tell new grads that when interviewing them and a lot are truly surprised when it's put in that perspective.

I never said it was a dumb question, and I never said that was the only answer. I am just saying, regardless of whether or not you like the job, would you do it for free knowing that you couldn't survive? Of course not! Nobody is going to take a full time job doing something they love, for free, when they have bills to pay. On the other hand, yes, you might accept a bit less money if you love the job, but regardless, you are at an interview because you want a job which will provide the exchange of money for a service. Money isn't the only reason people get jobs, but it certainly is the main one, independant of amount.

[RussiaRulez]

interviewer for a finance position: "Do you piss in the shower?"

"???" <--- Not a confident person = bad at taking risks = do not hire

[tail_duck]

interviewer for a finance position: "Do you piss in the shower?"

"???" <--- Not a confident person = bad at taking risks = do not hire

Whoa that was asked to you? I... I'm not sure how to answer without laughing. But if they expected one, I'm sure a logic minded person would say yes to benefit multitasking :lol:

[Error916]

the other day, they asked me how many pop cans can fit in a 747...I thought it was really dumb but I guess it had value. Build your assumptions and give reasonable estimate.

[tail_duck]

the other day, they asked me how many pop cans can fit in a 747...I thought it was really dumb but I guess it had value. Build your assumptions and give reasonable estimate.

http://managementconsulted.com/consulting-skills/how-many-baseballs-fit-inside-a-boeing-747-10-steps-to-solving-any-sizing-question-aka-the-mini-case-study/

[Sylvestre]

I never said it was a dumb question, and I never said that was the only answer. I am just saying, regardless of whether or not you like the job, would you do it for free knowing that you couldn't survive? Of course not! Nobody is going to take a full time job doing something they love, for free, when they have bills to pay. On the other hand, yes, you might accept a bit less money if you love the job, but regardless, you are at an interview because you want a job which will provide the exchange of money for a service. Money isn't the only reason people get jobs, but it certainly is the main one, independant of amount.

Where did this thing about working for free come from? I never said that. Re-read my posts.

And as highlighted in your quote, I am disagreeing that money is the main factor in deciding a job once you are established in your career. Sure, for new grads, cash is king, but it quickly becomes secondary to other things such as experience, status, outside factors etc.

[jjfz3000]

no, what I'm saying is "if you had another job that was paying you the salary we are offering, would you actually take this job?"

You had a really good point about that question being useful later during one's career. But I'm surprised to be asked this question while still being in university. There's not a lot of differentiation between the entry-level jobs. There not much different about them other than the wage difference.

I guess later on during the career you'd want a job that you're good at and has better potential for promotion, vacation days, bonuses, organizatonal culture and etc.

[dubjk]

to be honest, those are all pretty tough questions. a few years back if i didnt have mock interviews to practice and thought about the answers for the questions, it would be hard to answer it on the spot.

but there are other questions that i find to be bad too, like "what do you bring with you that would help the company/workplace?" or sometimes when they ask you if you have any questions or anything else you would like to say for them to take note.

[geronimo]

I voted for:
"If you were an animal/a can of soup/some other random object, which one would you be?"

All of the other questions actually aren't that bad to me. At first I thought they were, but now that I've done more interviews, I realize that they can actually be turned into positives based on my responses.