After having interviewed many people (and having been interviewed), I eventually modeled in my head the average technical competence of candidates as a Gaussian curve with a normal distribution. The lower part of that curve got weeded out by headhunters and HR. Then we go through resumes and weed more out - you need to have a certain level of competence (or a friend with such) to know enough to put a resume that looks good, even if it is puffed up some. Then we weed more out with phone interviews.
By that point, unless someone slips through, usually we are interviewing people on the right half of the curve. Which means the bulk of people will be average - as good as the average programmer, or admin, or what have you.
About one in six will be one standard deviation above the mean. About one in twenty will be two standard deviations above the mean. About one in three hundred or so will be three standard deviations above the mean. Bruno Bowden said the top leadership at Google was at least three standard deviations above the mean.
So that's the answer. Are they interviewing six people, or twenty (or three hundred)? Without a reference from someone in the group, the person they hire will probably be the one who is one or two standard deviations above the mean.
I think one example of this is in answering questions. Usually the first three questions I ask are the same for each person. People who stumble over the questions, who kind of can answer them, barely, rarely recover after them. People who hit all the questions out of the park right off the bat usually hit all the other questions asked out of the park. In a sense, for people who don't hit the first three questions out of the park, I'm only continuing the interview to not be rude (also usually my opinion is one of several, but no one ever said someone was competent that I said was not).
So I think that's one thing. You should be able to answer 100% of the questions asked, in detail. Because that was the hit rate of the people we thought were good. Not stumble over a sort-of answer, but answer in full, and explain whatever area is asked about in full detail if asked.
The one in six or one in twenty who could do this were given offers, unless they had severe personality issues. In my experience, here being average is good enough, although different places have different ideas on fit.
Flipping this model around, maybe one out of twenty interviews I've gone on have I been asked inane questions, where me not doing well was more the interviewers fault than mine. But for the other nineteen of twenty times, I would say if I didn't get the offer it was either because I applied for a position I was not qualified for, or I just was not prepared and filled-in on the subjects as I should have been.
Also, your English language and spelling skills are lacking, as someone has noted here. Were the interviews in the English language? If they were, that's something to work on.
By that point, unless someone slips through, usually we are interviewing people on the right half of the curve. Which means the bulk of people will be average - as good as the average programmer, or admin, or what have you.
About one in six will be one standard deviation above the mean. About one in twenty will be two standard deviations above the mean. About one in three hundred or so will be three standard deviations above the mean. Bruno Bowden said the top leadership at Google was at least three standard deviations above the mean.
So that's the answer. Are they interviewing six people, or twenty (or three hundred)? Without a reference from someone in the group, the person they hire will probably be the one who is one or two standard deviations above the mean.
I think one example of this is in answering questions. Usually the first three questions I ask are the same for each person. People who stumble over the questions, who kind of can answer them, barely, rarely recover after them. People who hit all the questions out of the park right off the bat usually hit all the other questions asked out of the park. In a sense, for people who don't hit the first three questions out of the park, I'm only continuing the interview to not be rude (also usually my opinion is one of several, but no one ever said someone was competent that I said was not).
So I think that's one thing. You should be able to answer 100% of the questions asked, in detail. Because that was the hit rate of the people we thought were good. Not stumble over a sort-of answer, but answer in full, and explain whatever area is asked about in full detail if asked.
The one in six or one in twenty who could do this were given offers, unless they had severe personality issues. In my experience, here being average is good enough, although different places have different ideas on fit.
Flipping this model around, maybe one out of twenty interviews I've gone on have I been asked inane questions, where me not doing well was more the interviewers fault than mine. But for the other nineteen of twenty times, I would say if I didn't get the offer it was either because I applied for a position I was not qualified for, or I just was not prepared and filled-in on the subjects as I should have been.
Also, your English language and spelling skills are lacking, as someone has noted here. Were the interviews in the English language? If they were, that's something to work on.