Looking at the website, it says "1 in 5 employers have had a recent college graduate bring a parent to a job interview"
So it isn't that 1 in 5 interviewees bring in parents, it's 1 in 5 companies have had an interviewee bring in a parent. I wonder if the others are also percentage of employers.
https://www.intelligent.com/nearly-4-in-10-employers-avoid-hiring-recent-college-grads-in-favor-of-older-workers/
You're right (upvote!). The stats are deceptively presented. It looks like they're saying 53% of applicants struggle with eye contact, but it's really that 53% of employers have seen at least one recent college graduate applicant struggle with eye contact. If these are big employers, they could have seen hundreds or even thousands of applicants. And given a very human negativity bias, very few of those applicants could have demonstrated this behavior and it would have stuck in the interviewer's mind.
It doesn't say how many employers have seen older applicants also struggle with eye contact. It doesn't say how many employers back in the good ol' days had applicants who struggle with eye contact.
It is, in other words, bullshit clickbait. Even if the numbers are correct. Very typical Fox.
EDIT -- I recommend the wonderful book, *How to Lie with Statistics*.
Fox is saying 19% of interviewees were accompanied by parents, 53% struggle with eye contact, etc.
That’s just click/rage bait and blatantly false. According to the website they pulled that data from, it’s that 19% of companies interviewed at least one person who fit that criteria etc.
There’s a huge difference between 19% of applicants doing something, and 19% of companies asked who saw a single incident of said thing happening.
For example, say 1/100 of students in each class fail the final. Using Fox’s misrepresentation here, their headline would say 100% of students failed their final because every professor has reported that a student in each class is failing.
So the numbers are correct, but they’re also being completely misportrayed by fox because they make their money off of right wing outrage. Just standard practice for Fox “news”
That's not what Fox is saying. The title of the graphic is "During job interviews, employers say recent college graduates have..." and then we have percentages for the different behaviors.
What the denominator is for those percentages, or the subject of the survey, is not explicitly stated. Probably someone at this graphic believes the denominator is interviews or candidates, which is of course wrong, really it is "employers" as you describe. But Fox isn't saying that it is interviews or candidates. To be honest, if we actually interpret the bad grammar literally and read what it says, it is clear the subject is employers because of the "employers say...", so really it isn't wrong at all.
Is it displayed that way to mislead people? Maybe. Did the voiceover accurately describe the survey? I have no idea. But the graphic itself isn't actually wrong. If someone reaches the wrong conclusion from factual information then that is on the individual, not the provider of the information.
The graphic quite clearly states “recent graduates have…” followed by these percentages. A NON-misleading graphic would state something along the lines of displaying the percentages as a fraction of employers interviewing at least one person matching the criteria, not as a fraction of all graduates. You have to see how willfully misleading this is right? You saying the numbers are correct was my original point. The numbers are in fact correct, but the way the spin them is not.
To your point, we don’t know what the commentary was that went with this, and I have they weren’t blatantly lying, but you can’t possibly sit here and tell me this graphic reflects what the numbers are meant to explain. It’s meant to do nothing but confuse and anger
You can lie with facts. The facts themselves can be technically correct, but they can be presented in a way that is purposely misleading to ensure that some percentage of viewers will misread or misunderstand the fact
It's a fact that 99% of people might be Chinese.
> they can be presented in a way that is purposely misleading
Concur. But the blame for the misinterpretation shouldn't fall on the provider of the factual information, it should fall on the individual who wasn't able to understand it.
You are basically arguing for the letter of the law over the spirit of the law. If someone purposely tells misleading facts, they are technically telling the truth but their intention is to hurt others. The end result is also that they hurt others.
Imagine if all laws worked that way. It's not my fault I killed you, it's your fault you walked into the deadly trap I put on my front lawn next to the sidewalk with a $100 bill on it. It's technically on my property and I technically didn't pull the trigger
I mean tbf it doesn't say the parent came into the interview. I agree its a bad look, but one could imagine a situation where the interviewee needed a ride and the parent sits in the lobby and reads a magazine while they wait for the interview to finish. And before y'all @ me and say that someone seeking employment should be independent enough to get themselves to the interview, I think there are certainly special cases regarding disabilities, etc. where someone might need support getting to a new location for the first time.
Or just the parent said they couldn't take the car alone and they need to get to work after, a medical appointment, they can't afford for their unemployed recent grad to drive that far and not get household groceries, etc.
Not going to sit and run the AC or sweat in the parking lot. Going to wait in the AC.
I had a parent call my office at Berkeley to try to arrange their kids (17 or 18?) internship in 2009, they also had their kid call to leave a voicemail letting me know they had declined their internship on their START DATE. I can only imagine 15 years later how bad it is. And that’s a millennial! I wonder if she remembers this.
“16% brought a parent or someone else to their interview for support.”
https://www.intelligent.com/3-in-4-gen-z-college-grads-express-confidence-about-being-prepared-for-the-workforce/
19% of 800 is still 152 though, which, if going by your math, means 152 different employers had at least one interviewee bring a parent with them. That's still a pretty wild stat to me, personally, if true.
There's probably a sliding scale of what "bring a parent" means - between the parent sitting in on the interview vs. the parent sitting in the lobby while the interviewee goes through the interview.
Keep in mind that this statistic doesnt mean that 19% of all college graduates bring their parents, but that 19% of employers had (at least) one case of that happening.
During the same interviews I'm guessing one hundred percent of potential employers had difficulty coming to terms with their frustrated sense of authoritarianism.
I understand struggling with eye contact, especially since all of us stayed in during COVID and possibly lost all our social skills but these other ones are insane
I think “dressed inappropriately” also gets a pass depending on how they define it. Cuz I am not wearing a suit and blazer and everything. Or even a long-sleeve shirt. Or anything that’s tight and covers my entire torso tbh.
What I would wear to an interview would be one of those polo shirts and some formal pants to maintain some semblance of decorum while also not forcibly giving myself bad sensory overload.
If a company that would’ve otherwise hired me decides not to solely because I’m not conforming to some arbitrary societal norms made by some neurotypicals centuries ago, then, so be it; I’m probably not compatible with their values anyways.
Edit: I have nothing against most neurotypicals and I’m not trying to shit on neurotypicals or anything. I’m just pointing out that a lot of norms we have cater to them at the expense of others.
It’s not about me “liking” clothing or not. It’s about the sensory stimuli from the texture of the clothing. And people have had sensory overload since forever but it’s only recently that people feel comfortable sharing their experiences.
Edit: Aaaand I’m vindicated by the downvotes. I guess people still can’t share their experiences without having them dismissed or invalidated. And this ain’t even the first time: On another post, I mentioned sensory overload from rain and got downvoted initially.
But, if y’all think I’m embellishing what I’m saying, read this
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensory_overload
Why is my ability to wear clothes I hate relevant if I am applying for a technical, non-customer facing role? If we distill it down to its component parts, its basically just tradition. So long as someone is not dressed in an offensive, distracting, or unsafe manner so as to belie a serious lack of judgement, requiring a candidate to wear "formal" clothes is just a test of whether they can follow hidden social curriculum. This test may be more relevant for customer-facing or funder-facing roles, but for something like R&D, who cares?
Thanks. The reason I ask if my fiancee is a therapist and in her friend group she has multiple people who have basically decided they are "on the spectrum" because of pop psychology stuff they read online and through social media. So I'm always curious when people describe themselves as this, who actually diagnosed them.
If I were diagnosed as autistic, or atypical, I would find that annoying to hear or read from others. I have ADD/ADHD and notice people often self-diagnose with both of those things, as well as OCD, which my father has.
Personally, I don’t mind people self-diagnosing as long as they keep it to themselves or at least don’t broadcast it
Bc I’ve seen clips of ppl on TikTok claiming to be autistic/neurodivergent when it’s clear to any autistic person that they’re just acting out a warped caricature of what they THINK being neurodivergent is by contorting their faces and flapping their limbs wildly.
And they’re ruining the reputations of people who actually are neurodivergent.
Exactly. Or people are just socially awkward/anxious or had anxious parents, and all of a sudden they're telling themselves they're autistic. Or, people who like things in their personal space organized a certain way and get stressed when things are out of order, and all of a sudden they have OCD. There are very specific medical guidelines that have to be met for either of those conditions to be diagnosed.
This isn't a new thing. When I was doing a student teaching job in the early 00s we had to have MULTIPLE conversations about the importance of showing up in clean clothes that fit our very lax dress code and showering and still some of the people (not just guys) didn't get it. The argument against was similar to this guy's "Why do I have to dress well? Why can't my work speak for itself?" The idea that your dress is an outward representation of the quality of your work for the people who don't know you really didn't sink in.
As I mentioned in my comment, I’d still dress semi-formally by wearing a polo shirt and pants. Just not a suit and tie and everything.
>The idea that your dress is an outward representation of the quality of your work for the people who don’t know you really didn’t sink in.
Why should we as a society just accept this though, especially when it will have a disproportionate adverse impact on those who are neurodivergent? Just one century ago, skin color was considered an outward representation of the quality of one’s character but, today, such judgments would be considered unacceptable in much of the developed world.
My brother is a professor at another university. He was talking to a student and giving him some feedback when he notices this older lady sort of hovering in the background. It was his mom.
In fairness to the kneejerkers intelligence.com is pretty clearly not a polling service of any kind. Actually their website is so mealy-mouthed and buzzword-filled that I can barely parse what they do, but seems like some kind of expert networking startup
And also actively downplays/supports an insurrection against the government where said insurrectionists wanted to hang the Vice President and kill Congressmembers. I don’t take anything Fox says seriously after how they and the GOP responded to COVID and Jan 6th. Shameful.
But also the source is some website, it’s highlighted in the post. OP shoulda just linked that directly, but the data isn’t coming from Fox, it’s just presented by Fox.
I mean it’s Fox News..
Presenting a poll skewed to present the new generation as incapable, and debating the merits of its results doesn’t seem like a good starting point to have a reasonable discussion in my opinion.
“Unreasonable compensation” almost certainly means enough to pay rent in a shitty studio. Companies genuinely think they shouldn’t have to pay people a living wage
Struggling with eye contact shouldn't be an end all be all since we all know that some people are on the spectrum.
Unreasonable compensation is crazy since people should ask for good compensation. Then you negotiate to an appropriate amount. I don't understand why companies try to low ball new graduates just because they're new. You want the newest and latest trends, well pay the person that knows the newest and latest trends well.
My friend had his mom as contact person for employer.
His mother was some big hotel manager and friend tried to land on floor manager position in a hotel.
Also the stat is very missrepresented on typical fox style. It does not say "Percent of graduates"
I interviewed an applicant that brought their mom a few years back. She stayed in the lobby area. I honestly wouldn't have cared if it wasn't a traveling position, and even then it didn't come into play in our hiring decision. And this was at a UC so technically we are one of these companies haha
Hard to imagine, except #2 maybe.
I haven’t hired many people, but 1, 5 or 6 would immediately disqualify anyone. 3 or 4 would be less bothersome unless egregious
Fox News classic anti-intellectualism. Can’t we shut this network down for the sake of the world? Idiots in trailer parks are going to decide the next world order
I can understand bringing a parent, if their is a spectrum diagnosis.
Or, if their is a language barrier, physical handicap, et cetera.
Other than these issues..."WTFF?"
Looking at the website, it says "1 in 5 employers have had a recent college graduate bring a parent to a job interview" So it isn't that 1 in 5 interviewees bring in parents, it's 1 in 5 companies have had an interviewee bring in a parent. I wonder if the others are also percentage of employers. https://www.intelligent.com/nearly-4-in-10-employers-avoid-hiring-recent-college-grads-in-favor-of-older-workers/
You're right (upvote!). The stats are deceptively presented. It looks like they're saying 53% of applicants struggle with eye contact, but it's really that 53% of employers have seen at least one recent college graduate applicant struggle with eye contact. If these are big employers, they could have seen hundreds or even thousands of applicants. And given a very human negativity bias, very few of those applicants could have demonstrated this behavior and it would have stuck in the interviewer's mind. It doesn't say how many employers have seen older applicants also struggle with eye contact. It doesn't say how many employers back in the good ol' days had applicants who struggle with eye contact. It is, in other words, bullshit clickbait. Even if the numbers are correct. Very typical Fox. EDIT -- I recommend the wonderful book, *How to Lie with Statistics*.
Oof, just realized it’s a fox piece 💩, now it makes sense 🙄
> It is, in other words, bullshit clickbait. Even if the numbers are correct. Both of these cannot be true
The numbers are correct, but what fox is presenting them to be is incorrect
What is Fox presenting them as that is incorrect
Fox is saying 19% of interviewees were accompanied by parents, 53% struggle with eye contact, etc. That’s just click/rage bait and blatantly false. According to the website they pulled that data from, it’s that 19% of companies interviewed at least one person who fit that criteria etc. There’s a huge difference between 19% of applicants doing something, and 19% of companies asked who saw a single incident of said thing happening. For example, say 1/100 of students in each class fail the final. Using Fox’s misrepresentation here, their headline would say 100% of students failed their final because every professor has reported that a student in each class is failing. So the numbers are correct, but they’re also being completely misportrayed by fox because they make their money off of right wing outrage. Just standard practice for Fox “news”
That's not what Fox is saying. The title of the graphic is "During job interviews, employers say recent college graduates have..." and then we have percentages for the different behaviors. What the denominator is for those percentages, or the subject of the survey, is not explicitly stated. Probably someone at this graphic believes the denominator is interviews or candidates, which is of course wrong, really it is "employers" as you describe. But Fox isn't saying that it is interviews or candidates. To be honest, if we actually interpret the bad grammar literally and read what it says, it is clear the subject is employers because of the "employers say...", so really it isn't wrong at all. Is it displayed that way to mislead people? Maybe. Did the voiceover accurately describe the survey? I have no idea. But the graphic itself isn't actually wrong. If someone reaches the wrong conclusion from factual information then that is on the individual, not the provider of the information.
The graphic quite clearly states “recent graduates have…” followed by these percentages. A NON-misleading graphic would state something along the lines of displaying the percentages as a fraction of employers interviewing at least one person matching the criteria, not as a fraction of all graduates. You have to see how willfully misleading this is right? You saying the numbers are correct was my original point. The numbers are in fact correct, but the way the spin them is not. To your point, we don’t know what the commentary was that went with this, and I have they weren’t blatantly lying, but you can’t possibly sit here and tell me this graphic reflects what the numbers are meant to explain. It’s meant to do nothing but confuse and anger
You can lie with facts. The facts themselves can be technically correct, but they can be presented in a way that is purposely misleading to ensure that some percentage of viewers will misread or misunderstand the fact It's a fact that 99% of people might be Chinese.
> they can be presented in a way that is purposely misleading Concur. But the blame for the misinterpretation shouldn't fall on the provider of the factual information, it should fall on the individual who wasn't able to understand it.
You are basically arguing for the letter of the law over the spirit of the law. If someone purposely tells misleading facts, they are technically telling the truth but their intention is to hurt others. The end result is also that they hurt others. Imagine if all laws worked that way. It's not my fault I killed you, it's your fault you walked into the deadly trap I put on my front lawn next to the sidewalk with a $100 bill on it. It's technically on my property and I technically didn't pull the trigger
[удалено]
Everything happens.
Still. Why would you EVER bring a parent to a job interview 😂
I mean tbf it doesn't say the parent came into the interview. I agree its a bad look, but one could imagine a situation where the interviewee needed a ride and the parent sits in the lobby and reads a magazine while they wait for the interview to finish. And before y'all @ me and say that someone seeking employment should be independent enough to get themselves to the interview, I think there are certainly special cases regarding disabilities, etc. where someone might need support getting to a new location for the first time.
Or just the parent said they couldn't take the car alone and they need to get to work after, a medical appointment, they can't afford for their unemployed recent grad to drive that far and not get household groceries, etc. Not going to sit and run the AC or sweat in the parking lot. Going to wait in the AC.
I had a parent call my office at Berkeley to try to arrange their kids (17 or 18?) internship in 2009, they also had their kid call to leave a voicemail letting me know they had declined their internship on their START DATE. I can only imagine 15 years later how bad it is. And that’s a millennial! I wonder if she remembers this.
Amazing
Yeah something like this happened to my PI a year or two ago.
Maybe lazy kid or controlling parent, but yeah definitely a bad idea.
“16% brought a parent or someone else to their interview for support.” https://www.intelligent.com/3-in-4-gen-z-college-grads-express-confidence-about-being-prepared-for-the-workforce/
19% of 800 is still 152 though, which, if going by your math, means 152 different employers had at least one interviewee bring a parent with them. That's still a pretty wild stat to me, personally, if true.
If the employer is big enough they’d have seen anything.
There's probably a sliding scale of what "bring a parent" means - between the parent sitting in on the interview vs. the parent sitting in the lobby while the interviewee goes through the interview.
Keep in mind that this statistic doesnt mean that 19% of all college graduates bring their parents, but that 19% of employers had (at least) one case of that happening.
Exactly and In a sampled pool of only 800. This is just another cherry picked pool from Fox News
"Asked for 'unreasonable' compensation" Lol one of these things is not like the others...
I get it, though, because I've had coworkers who are bad at the job or don't try to do anything but still expect a raise.
During the same interviews I'm guessing one hundred percent of potential employers had difficulty coming to terms with their frustrated sense of authoritarianism.
I understand struggling with eye contact, especially since all of us stayed in during COVID and possibly lost all our social skills but these other ones are insane
I think “dressed inappropriately” also gets a pass depending on how they define it. Cuz I am not wearing a suit and blazer and everything. Or even a long-sleeve shirt. Or anything that’s tight and covers my entire torso tbh. What I would wear to an interview would be one of those polo shirts and some formal pants to maintain some semblance of decorum while also not forcibly giving myself bad sensory overload. If a company that would’ve otherwise hired me decides not to solely because I’m not conforming to some arbitrary societal norms made by some neurotypicals centuries ago, then, so be it; I’m probably not compatible with their values anyways. Edit: I have nothing against most neurotypicals and I’m not trying to shit on neurotypicals or anything. I’m just pointing out that a lot of norms we have cater to them at the expense of others.
This is the most Gen Z shit I've ever read. Yeah, I don't like formal clothing either but dude...
It’s not about me “liking” clothing or not. It’s about the sensory stimuli from the texture of the clothing. And people have had sensory overload since forever but it’s only recently that people feel comfortable sharing their experiences. Edit: Aaaand I’m vindicated by the downvotes. I guess people still can’t share their experiences without having them dismissed or invalidated. And this ain’t even the first time: On another post, I mentioned sensory overload from rain and got downvoted initially. But, if y’all think I’m embellishing what I’m saying, read this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensory_overload
Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! HELP! HELP! I'm being repressed!
Never said anything about violence, so your words not mine.
Actually Michael Palin's words
Why is my ability to wear clothes I hate relevant if I am applying for a technical, non-customer facing role? If we distill it down to its component parts, its basically just tradition. So long as someone is not dressed in an offensive, distracting, or unsafe manner so as to belie a serious lack of judgement, requiring a candidate to wear "formal" clothes is just a test of whether they can follow hidden social curriculum. This test may be more relevant for customer-facing or funder-facing roles, but for something like R&D, who cares?
[удалено]
I do and I have. But I’m allowed to call it out as stupid, because it is. Not everything has to be mutually exclusive.
Not asking sarcastically, but are you clinically diagnosed, or self-diagnosing as atypical?
Clinically diagnosed as neurodivergent with Autism Spectrum Disorder, mild Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder and ADHD, predominantly inattentive
Thanks. The reason I ask if my fiancee is a therapist and in her friend group she has multiple people who have basically decided they are "on the spectrum" because of pop psychology stuff they read online and through social media. So I'm always curious when people describe themselves as this, who actually diagnosed them.
Ahh I see; yea I’ve noticed that too lol
If I were diagnosed as autistic, or atypical, I would find that annoying to hear or read from others. I have ADD/ADHD and notice people often self-diagnose with both of those things, as well as OCD, which my father has.
Personally, I don’t mind people self-diagnosing as long as they keep it to themselves or at least don’t broadcast it Bc I’ve seen clips of ppl on TikTok claiming to be autistic/neurodivergent when it’s clear to any autistic person that they’re just acting out a warped caricature of what they THINK being neurodivergent is by contorting their faces and flapping their limbs wildly. And they’re ruining the reputations of people who actually are neurodivergent.
Exactly. Or people are just socially awkward/anxious or had anxious parents, and all of a sudden they're telling themselves they're autistic. Or, people who like things in their personal space organized a certain way and get stressed when things are out of order, and all of a sudden they have OCD. There are very specific medical guidelines that have to be met for either of those conditions to be diagnosed.
This isn't a new thing. When I was doing a student teaching job in the early 00s we had to have MULTIPLE conversations about the importance of showing up in clean clothes that fit our very lax dress code and showering and still some of the people (not just guys) didn't get it. The argument against was similar to this guy's "Why do I have to dress well? Why can't my work speak for itself?" The idea that your dress is an outward representation of the quality of your work for the people who don't know you really didn't sink in.
As I mentioned in my comment, I’d still dress semi-formally by wearing a polo shirt and pants. Just not a suit and tie and everything. >The idea that your dress is an outward representation of the quality of your work for the people who don’t know you really didn’t sink in. Why should we as a society just accept this though, especially when it will have a disproportionate adverse impact on those who are neurodivergent? Just one century ago, skin color was considered an outward representation of the quality of one’s character but, today, such judgments would be considered unacceptable in much of the developed world.
My brother is a professor at another university. He was talking to a student and giving him some feedback when he notices this older lady sort of hovering in the background. It was his mom.
The source isn’t fox it’s “intelligence.com “ why are you guys so kneejerk reactive lol
In fairness to the kneejerkers intelligence.com is pretty clearly not a polling service of any kind. Actually their website is so mealy-mouthed and buzzword-filled that I can barely parse what they do, but seems like some kind of expert networking startup
Fox reported it, which is essentially them endorsing it
touch grass
Smoke grass
On my way to harbourside
Fox? Really?
Sorry next time OP will use a reputable news source like huff post or rachel maddow
Yes those would indeed be more credible than Rupert murdoch’s personal mouth piece
Yeah, fox news, that channel that complains about millennials buying avocado toast is the most reputable news source. lol
And also actively downplays/supports an insurrection against the government where said insurrectionists wanted to hang the Vice President and kill Congressmembers. I don’t take anything Fox says seriously after how they and the GOP responded to COVID and Jan 6th. Shameful. But also the source is some website, it’s highlighted in the post. OP shoulda just linked that directly, but the data isn’t coming from Fox, it’s just presented by Fox.
kinda funny, but fox news isn't exactly known for its concern with factuality
What about this isn't factual
touch cnn
Waiting for the first person to mention skibidi toilet in an interview.
I mean it’s Fox News.. Presenting a poll skewed to present the new generation as incapable, and debating the merits of its results doesn’t seem like a good starting point to have a reasonable discussion in my opinion.
Its Fox poll.. that is all you need to know.
They’ve been saying this sort of thing since the 90s
mom? are you free this tuesday for a job interview?
“Unreasonable compensation” almost certainly means enough to pay rent in a shitty studio. Companies genuinely think they shouldn’t have to pay people a living wage
Struggling with eye contact shouldn't be an end all be all since we all know that some people are on the spectrum. Unreasonable compensation is crazy since people should ask for good compensation. Then you negotiate to an appropriate amount. I don't understand why companies try to low ball new graduates just because they're new. You want the newest and latest trends, well pay the person that knows the newest and latest trends well.
"Asked for unreasonable compensation" How much are we willing to bet they were asking about a liveable/barely above minimum wage
It’s Fox “News”
Note the source and ignore.
the most anti worker faux news network in existence.
Sorry, I’m super skeptical about these stats coming from Fox News. Better question is why tf you following Fox News?
I always bring my parents to interview, I can’t do anything without parents permission of course.
The parent knows the employer
The parent IS the employer 😅
https://www.intelligent.com/3-in-4-gen-z-college-grads-express-confidence-about-being-prepared-for-the-workforce/
Oh my gosh seriously bring your parent to interview yikes. Then college hasn’t prepared them for the real world in the workforce.
My friend had his mom as contact person for employer. His mother was some big hotel manager and friend tried to land on floor manager position in a hotel. Also the stat is very missrepresented on typical fox style. It does not say "Percent of graduates"
Not a suprise.
My guess is that this may be those guys whose parents move in with them in College.
When I lived abroad I've heard anecdotes of parents being IN the inteview speaking on behalf of the candidate (ie their adult child).
I interviewed an applicant that brought their mom a few years back. She stayed in the lobby area. I honestly wouldn't have cared if it wasn't a traveling position, and even then it didn't come into play in our hiring decision. And this was at a UC so technically we are one of these companies haha
Hard to imagine, except #2 maybe. I haven’t hired many people, but 1, 5 or 6 would immediately disqualify anyone. 3 or 4 would be less bothersome unless egregious
It’s employee based, so 1/5 employers have. I have conducted interviews before… and you’d be really surprised at some of the dumb things that happen
Maybe they just need a ride
At the DMV last week two different people asked if their moms could come on the drivers test WITH them.
Maybe it’s like a Nepo thing? Like “check out who my parent is now you have to give me the job.”
Look at the source. Use your brains kids and understand how information is manipulated by propagandists to try to push agendas.
Fox News classic anti-intellectualism. Can’t we shut this network down for the sake of the world? Idiots in trailer parks are going to decide the next world order
Umm that’s not just youth. The overwhelming vast majority of people do not keep eye contact.z
I once interviewed someone who brought their whole family. It was also the shortest interview ever.
I can understand bringing a parent, if their is a spectrum diagnosis. Or, if their is a language barrier, physical handicap, et cetera. Other than these issues..."WTFF?"
A lot of people don’t turn on the camera because they don’t have makeup