The interview location is not far from the MRT station.

The office building looks impressive.

When you get near the office,

someone will guide you at the corner of the corridor (mainly guiding people who came to attend the information session; applicants are an afterthought).

The interview is scheduled for around nine on a weekend.

Actually, you are there to attend a recruitment information session, and the interview is merely incidental.

So when I first found out that the session lasted until noon, the first spark of anger was lit in my heart.

/

The second spark came from the middle-aged male interviewer whose name starts with P.

Just as described in a post on PTT, he really was extremely condescending.

He also did not clearly explain the job duties.

He only said that you would definitely handle all kinds of administrative tasks in the office,

as well as the work being done by the other staff at the recruitment information session.

Those who joined later would also have to do those things.

He did not mention anything at all about salary or benefits.

By the way, it was a group interview.

Everyone who came for an interview that day was interviewed together in a small office at the back of a classroom.

At the beginning, Mr. P asked everyone to introduce themselves.

He then elaborated based on the content of everyone's self-introduction.

But really, don't expect him to explain things in much detail or with much specificity.

Then came the standard interview question: “Do you have any questions?”

I asked three questions, but he answered only one.

That one was: “Is there one day off every eight days? How are the shifts scheduled?”

Answer: Six days off per month; working on holidays is mandatory.

The other two questions were about things such as the company's culture and expectations for the position (specific goals).

In essence: What positive factors in this company or this job would make people look forward to it or feel happy?

What are the expectations for this position? Are there any specific goals they hope the person can achieve, and so on?

To questions like these, he would only say, “You can attend the information session later and find out.”

“I don't want to explain this so many times.” = =

The third spark came during the information session.

He said that no one was required to stay for the video and information session, and that people could listen if they had time.

But personally, I felt it was a huge waste of time.

I was especially annoyed when he told me to listen to the information session myself to get answers to those questions.

Recruitment and hiring are two different things, so the content being conveyed should be somewhat different.

It should not have been handled this way; it felt dismissive and disrespectful to applicants.

Some of the things said at the recruitment session: if you are involved in a labor union, a social movement, feminism, gender equality, or have strong social-critique views, please don't come in to listen. You will become extremely frustrated, and you will notice that their logic is inconsistent from one point to another—the kind of thing that would make for a very entertaining debate. Simply put, the examples they give are all intended to recruit students and earn your tuition fees; unlike other talks or lectures, they are not sincerely trying to share some important central idea with you. Remember: their central idea is making money from tuition.

In short, this interview is recommended for people who are very lost, occasionally need a little motivation, and have time to spare. If you don't have time or really enjoy debating with both sides of your brain, please don't come—it will be a waste of time.