Most/best/weirdest questions at job interviews
-
Illiane_Blues
Re: Most/best/weirdest questions at job interviews
And yes, make videos! I've never had to show any, but two recruiters I interviewed with were impressed I had some for them to watch. I got the feeling it makes you look like a more serious candidate.
Reply
@Heliotrope
A parrot could give just as intelligent of an answer to this douchey question. Lots of IB practitioners couldnt recite on demand an LP or ATL on command, and can get comfortably to and from the IS. We disagree.
Yes, it is exactly what I am doing, I wrote the piece, I didnt cite anyone else, I offered nothing more than rhetoric or oratory to support the claims, which is how I know your doing EXACTLY the same thing, I never claimed my position was anything else. You dont seem to know what facts are.
One zooms on nothing because you say it does, its a douchey terminology, lexicon question that asks if the IT can recite and recall vocabulary.
Yes, asking "how you translate IB theory into classroom practice" is a pretty good question, its not what the douchey questions that were given as examples do.
No you interpreted the questions as a translation of IB theory into classroom practice.
@Illiane_Blues
We disagree.
I never, ever present my opinion as facts, I wrote them, their my opinions, if they were someone elses there would be a citation. If you or other members or readers interpret my claims, and statements as representing facts, thats YOUR interpretation, Im not responsible for YOUR interpretation, you are.
I absolutely evaluate my opinions exactly as I do everyone elses.
I am completely open to being wrong, what isnt being wrong is substituting someone elses opinion for my own based on their claim of being right.
PS::FYI (to those keeping score): This post contained no reference of 'only data matters'
A parrot could give just as intelligent of an answer to this douchey question. Lots of IB practitioners couldnt recite on demand an LP or ATL on command, and can get comfortably to and from the IS. We disagree.
Yes, it is exactly what I am doing, I wrote the piece, I didnt cite anyone else, I offered nothing more than rhetoric or oratory to support the claims, which is how I know your doing EXACTLY the same thing, I never claimed my position was anything else. You dont seem to know what facts are.
One zooms on nothing because you say it does, its a douchey terminology, lexicon question that asks if the IT can recite and recall vocabulary.
Yes, asking "how you translate IB theory into classroom practice" is a pretty good question, its not what the douchey questions that were given as examples do.
No you interpreted the questions as a translation of IB theory into classroom practice.
@Illiane_Blues
We disagree.
I never, ever present my opinion as facts, I wrote them, their my opinions, if they were someone elses there would be a citation. If you or other members or readers interpret my claims, and statements as representing facts, thats YOUR interpretation, Im not responsible for YOUR interpretation, you are.
I absolutely evaluate my opinions exactly as I do everyone elses.
I am completely open to being wrong, what isnt being wrong is substituting someone elses opinion for my own based on their claim of being right.
PS::FYI (to those keeping score): This post contained no reference of 'only data matters'
-
Heliotrope
- Posts: 1168
- Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 1:48 am
Re: Reply
> A parrot could give just as intelligent of an answer to this douchey
> question. Lots of IB practitioners couldnt recite on demand an LP or ATL on
> command, and can get comfortably to and from the IS. We disagree.
A parrot can't do more than recite a list, so no, a parrot cannot answer the question.
If a parrot would try to answer the question: "How do you integrate IB learner profile traits in your DP physics classroom?" by repeating a list with just the LP traits, he would not be hired,
And sorry, you wouldn't able to find a single teacher at my school (or my previous IB schools) that wouldn't be able to give you at least a few LP traits, enough to give some examples and answer the question. They're pretty much everywhere (overused a bit in my opinion). But if enough people that have taught IB the last two years would now reply by saying they wouldn't be able to name two, I would gladly stand corrected.
Then again, I prep for interviews, so would brush up a bit if I thought all my most basic knowledge of IB had somehow disappeared.
Yes, we disagree. A lot. I don't see our marriage surviving this.
> Yes, it is exactly what I am doing, I wrote the piece, I didnt cite anyone
> else, I offered nothing more than rhetoric or oratory to support the
> claims, which is how I know your doing EXACTLY the same thing, I never
> claimed my position was anything else. You dont seem to know what facts
> are.
You say things are true or not true, even when it's merely your opinion.
I try to always add that it's my opinion, unless it is factual true (like something being more specific, but more on that below). Hiding behind "I wrote it so therefore it's automatically nothing more than my opinion" is a Trumpian defense (doesn't get more douchey than Trump).
> One zooms on nothing because you say it does, its a douchey terminology,
> lexicon question that asks if the IT can recite and recall vocabulary.
"How do you integrate IB learner profile traits in your DP physics classroom?" is factually a more specific question than "How do you translate IB theory into classroom practice", for it zooms in on a specific part of the IB theory (LP traits).
> No you interpreted the questions as a translation of IB theory into
> classroom practice.
The question was "How do you integrate IB learner profile traits in your DP physics classroom?"
IB learner profile traits = irrefutably part of IB theory
integrate in your DP physics classroom = translate into classroom practice
Same for the other question, with ATLs being part of IB theory as well.
> question. Lots of IB practitioners couldnt recite on demand an LP or ATL on
> command, and can get comfortably to and from the IS. We disagree.
A parrot can't do more than recite a list, so no, a parrot cannot answer the question.
If a parrot would try to answer the question: "How do you integrate IB learner profile traits in your DP physics classroom?" by repeating a list with just the LP traits, he would not be hired,
And sorry, you wouldn't able to find a single teacher at my school (or my previous IB schools) that wouldn't be able to give you at least a few LP traits, enough to give some examples and answer the question. They're pretty much everywhere (overused a bit in my opinion). But if enough people that have taught IB the last two years would now reply by saying they wouldn't be able to name two, I would gladly stand corrected.
Then again, I prep for interviews, so would brush up a bit if I thought all my most basic knowledge of IB had somehow disappeared.
Yes, we disagree. A lot. I don't see our marriage surviving this.
> Yes, it is exactly what I am doing, I wrote the piece, I didnt cite anyone
> else, I offered nothing more than rhetoric or oratory to support the
> claims, which is how I know your doing EXACTLY the same thing, I never
> claimed my position was anything else. You dont seem to know what facts
> are.
You say things are true or not true, even when it's merely your opinion.
I try to always add that it's my opinion, unless it is factual true (like something being more specific, but more on that below). Hiding behind "I wrote it so therefore it's automatically nothing more than my opinion" is a Trumpian defense (doesn't get more douchey than Trump).
> One zooms on nothing because you say it does, its a douchey terminology,
> lexicon question that asks if the IT can recite and recall vocabulary.
"How do you integrate IB learner profile traits in your DP physics classroom?" is factually a more specific question than "How do you translate IB theory into classroom practice", for it zooms in on a specific part of the IB theory (LP traits).
> No you interpreted the questions as a translation of IB theory into
> classroom practice.
The question was "How do you integrate IB learner profile traits in your DP physics classroom?"
IB learner profile traits = irrefutably part of IB theory
integrate in your DP physics classroom = translate into classroom practice
Same for the other question, with ATLs being part of IB theory as well.
Reply
@Heliotrope
Parrots can do all sorts of mimicry, including complex phrases, they can do more than a list.
You dont know that, the parrot may very well be hired.
We disagree, and i doubt you would be standing when corrected.
You dont seem to grasp a fundamental understanding of how the perception of truth and reality works. Of course its my opinion I wrote it. This is one of the first things i work hard with in my students writing, they dont need to capitalize every sentence, statement and claim with 'I think, I feel, I believe, In my opinion", the reader already knows its the writers opinion, they are the ones writing it, if it was someone elses opinion it would have a citation. I dont "say" things are true or not true, I write claims and statements that I believe based on data are true or not true.
There is nothing "factual" in regards to "specificity" in the claim "How do you integrate IB learner profile traits in your DP physics classroom, again you dont know what facts are, this isnt a fact, its degree of specificity is not a fact, these claims are merely your opinion.
You tend to use terms such as "factual, irrefutable, self evident" and "equals" (such as used in structuring logical Boolean arguments) as rhetorical devices to improve and strengthen the arguments and claims you make with no better or stronger support than your claim that it is so.
LP traits are not a part of IB theory. They are IB 'practice', they are a part of the methodology, not the pedagogy.
This is a douchey question by a recruiter/leadership to over emphasis IB vocabulary.
Parrots can do all sorts of mimicry, including complex phrases, they can do more than a list.
You dont know that, the parrot may very well be hired.
We disagree, and i doubt you would be standing when corrected.
You dont seem to grasp a fundamental understanding of how the perception of truth and reality works. Of course its my opinion I wrote it. This is one of the first things i work hard with in my students writing, they dont need to capitalize every sentence, statement and claim with 'I think, I feel, I believe, In my opinion", the reader already knows its the writers opinion, they are the ones writing it, if it was someone elses opinion it would have a citation. I dont "say" things are true or not true, I write claims and statements that I believe based on data are true or not true.
There is nothing "factual" in regards to "specificity" in the claim "How do you integrate IB learner profile traits in your DP physics classroom, again you dont know what facts are, this isnt a fact, its degree of specificity is not a fact, these claims are merely your opinion.
You tend to use terms such as "factual, irrefutable, self evident" and "equals" (such as used in structuring logical Boolean arguments) as rhetorical devices to improve and strengthen the arguments and claims you make with no better or stronger support than your claim that it is so.
LP traits are not a part of IB theory. They are IB 'practice', they are a part of the methodology, not the pedagogy.
This is a douchey question by a recruiter/leadership to over emphasis IB vocabulary.
-
Heliotrope
- Posts: 1168
- Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 1:48 am
Re: Reply
Well, they have very special parrots where you're from I guess.
On a forum where advice is asked and action might be taken based on the responses, it would be wise to add your degree of (un)certainty to a statement that appears to be factual when replying.
If I ask for directions, and the person giving them to me says "Oh, that's easy, my brother works there, you just go straight and then turn left at the second intersection", I would be more likely to follow those directions then in the event he would say that it 'might' be that way, or "that sounds vaguely familiar, I think it's that way but I'm not sure". In that case I would ask somebody else to confirm. Technically speaking the first person is also giving his opinion, but if he's not 100% sure, it would be helpful to the person asking the question if that was made clear to him.
That's when there's is a factual answer (the store is or is not indeed located there).
When speculating about the intentions of others (recruiters for example) or when a reply is based on personal experience only, I would argue it should be the same: it's someone strong personal belief that things/people are (or should be) a certain way, but knowing that it's merely a privately held opinion, something indicating this should be added to the response.
Of course this is assuming the primary motive is to help the OP, and not merely trying to win an argument on technicalities.
I would argue that the IB theory is both methodology and pedagogy. You can theorise about methodology, can't you? The IBO has done so, resulting in the IB LP traits.
When you say "This is a douchey question by a recruiter/leadership to over emphasis IB vocabulary" you are stating you know what their intentions were, where you do not.
Furthermore, when using jargon/vocabulary, it's quite likely the recruiter doesn't even realise he/they are using terms others might not familiar with, especially if they use them themselves every day at work, and the interviewing being part of work. In this case they could also pretty safely assume the candidate would know these terms, knowing he/she has IB experience.
Let's not discuss this any further.
For two reasons:
- (most important) We're well past the point where we're helping the OP
- Christmas holiday has started
If you wish to be the last person replying (I saw that in 25 out of the last 50 topics, you are the last to reply), feel free to reply once more.
Or not of course.
Merry Christmas either way!
On a forum where advice is asked and action might be taken based on the responses, it would be wise to add your degree of (un)certainty to a statement that appears to be factual when replying.
If I ask for directions, and the person giving them to me says "Oh, that's easy, my brother works there, you just go straight and then turn left at the second intersection", I would be more likely to follow those directions then in the event he would say that it 'might' be that way, or "that sounds vaguely familiar, I think it's that way but I'm not sure". In that case I would ask somebody else to confirm. Technically speaking the first person is also giving his opinion, but if he's not 100% sure, it would be helpful to the person asking the question if that was made clear to him.
That's when there's is a factual answer (the store is or is not indeed located there).
When speculating about the intentions of others (recruiters for example) or when a reply is based on personal experience only, I would argue it should be the same: it's someone strong personal belief that things/people are (or should be) a certain way, but knowing that it's merely a privately held opinion, something indicating this should be added to the response.
Of course this is assuming the primary motive is to help the OP, and not merely trying to win an argument on technicalities.
I would argue that the IB theory is both methodology and pedagogy. You can theorise about methodology, can't you? The IBO has done so, resulting in the IB LP traits.
When you say "This is a douchey question by a recruiter/leadership to over emphasis IB vocabulary" you are stating you know what their intentions were, where you do not.
Furthermore, when using jargon/vocabulary, it's quite likely the recruiter doesn't even realise he/they are using terms others might not familiar with, especially if they use them themselves every day at work, and the interviewing being part of work. In this case they could also pretty safely assume the candidate would know these terms, knowing he/she has IB experience.
Let's not discuss this any further.
For two reasons:
- (most important) We're well past the point where we're helping the OP
- Christmas holiday has started
If you wish to be the last person replying (I saw that in 25 out of the last 50 topics, you are the last to reply), feel free to reply once more.
Or not of course.
Merry Christmas either way!
Reply
@Heliotrope
Im not responsible for yours or anyones misunderstanding of what facts are. I dont post without a high degree of confidence in the validity of my statements and claims. No one is ever 100% sure of an opinion, if it as 100% accurate it would be a fact. I qualify my statements and claims as I deem necessary.
I wasnt speculating on the intention of recruiters, I was extrapolating from data and made my conclusions based on a satisfactory and appropriate standard of confidence.
I would reject your argument. Again, of course its my opinion, I wrote it, if it was someone elses opinion it would be accompanied by a citation.
I would argue that theory by definition is pedagogy, once its methodology its no longer theory, its practice, it may be misguided, or erroneous, or invalid practice resulting from deficiencies in the theory (and pedagogy) but its no longer theory.
I know what their intention is based on previous data and extrapolated to a generalization to a high degree of confidence.
Your claim that leaderships unlikely "unawareness" of the use of jargon, is your opinion, we disagree.
Happy Holidays
Im not responsible for yours or anyones misunderstanding of what facts are. I dont post without a high degree of confidence in the validity of my statements and claims. No one is ever 100% sure of an opinion, if it as 100% accurate it would be a fact. I qualify my statements and claims as I deem necessary.
I wasnt speculating on the intention of recruiters, I was extrapolating from data and made my conclusions based on a satisfactory and appropriate standard of confidence.
I would reject your argument. Again, of course its my opinion, I wrote it, if it was someone elses opinion it would be accompanied by a citation.
I would argue that theory by definition is pedagogy, once its methodology its no longer theory, its practice, it may be misguided, or erroneous, or invalid practice resulting from deficiencies in the theory (and pedagogy) but its no longer theory.
I know what their intention is based on previous data and extrapolated to a generalization to a high degree of confidence.
Your claim that leaderships unlikely "unawareness" of the use of jargon, is your opinion, we disagree.
Happy Holidays