- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by ROSA R HERNANDEZ
- Aug 09, 2017, 10:58 PMi just received a letter stating that i failed too. When i was taking the test it seemed like the easiest questions ever, i have no idea how i failed i am very confused and disappointed :-/ :-/ :-/ :-/
Posted by MonteroAngel
- Dec 08, 2016, 11:10 PMI too am in the same boat as you had the oral and didn't here anything back yet since 10/5 I been waiting
Posted by Lang
- Oct 13, 2016, 10:58 PMI have a question for you. How long did it take you to get that mail stating that you've failed your psych test? I've taken one about a week ago and I haven't got anything back from the hr yet. I'm wondering if they're send me that letter?
Posted by DippityShurff
- Jun 20, 2007, 07:56 PMYour argument is convincing, heartfelt and I am quite certain, true. You will make someone a fine LE Officer. Good luck in your search.
Posted by TANSTAAFL7
- Jun 20, 2007, 07:41 PMHey hows it going guys. Just popped in and started reading this thread. I too failed a psych eval. Its true - life ain't fair. I agree with 95% of everything Doc had to say about, basically, wanting to hire the MOST qualified candidate. However, there were some things that I take issue with, being on the other side of the fence. I will address this to the guys like myself who are passionate about getting on to a department.
1. Fail the MMPI test in California, and, for a lot of departments, its mandatory that you wait 6 months before you can apply to that specific department. I don't know how they do things over on the east coast, but over here, you can be as jolly "go git-em" as you want and it won't do crap for you. They don't care about tenacity. When they fail you on the psych you're looking at a long, long wait no matter how passionate you are. Sorry, thats facts.
2. The test is subjective. Theres about 1000 questions, however before they administer the test you're told that they REALIZE the test is subjective and that AFTER the test, your particular answers will be gone over in detail and "ironed" out with the psych doctor. In REALITY, all 1000+ answers are fed into a machine. That machine sorts, collates, and correllates your answers to a preset computer model of different personality profiles, and then spits out your results which are, GET THIS: Short paragraphs that are basically a cheat sheet for the psych eval guy to look at and size you up.
As user after user on this board has pointed out though, the questions which are used to make those paragraphs (which purport to be your "personality-in-a-can") are based on questions, the answers to which are judged on a very subjective basis. I love how some jerks on this board try and tell you to "tell the truth" and it'll all be "ok." Thats unrealistic. The very NATURE of these questions clips off portions and degrees of the truth from your answer.
For Example: Say I'm asked True or false (and by the way, most of the questions on the test I took were degree based questions, Like: "I like to take charge when others hold back" 1- VERY TRUE 2- STRONG TRUE 3- TRUE 4- NEUTRAL 5- NOT TRUE 6- NOT TRUE AT ALL etc) whether I have committed acts of violence. That for me, and I suspect for everyone else, would be true, with strict reading of interpretation. However, answering True to this question does not go under the "TRUE" category, its computed into the machine after you're done taking the test and is used to build a PSYCH PROFILE of you. Now, this one answer alone would not be enough to sink you. I suspect that the designers of the test were looking for someone trying to fake the test. However, not all of the questions are this easy to read. There are some that make you wonder "Well, yeah, thats true, I have to answer true but gosh, I know the machine isn't going to understand that I was 6 years old when I "stole" my dads car and that everyone laughed, I got spanked after I backed it up all of 5 feet into the street, learned my lesson and never did something like that again- it just asks true or false and unfortunately THATS ALL THE MACHINE KNOWS - I had to put down "T" for multiple "bad" category questions because of one silly incident that happened to me when I was a kid. Heres the killer though - the machine spits out all these small little paragraphs about your personality right? The psych guy comes in (he was late in my case) from the gold course or whereever. He's a white guy, in his sixties probably, I guessing well to-do. He asks his secretary "Are they done yet?" walks into his office with the results of the test which are the little paragraphs. He walks back out of his office, tells me to take off my tie and my jacket and sit down with him. Now, before I took the test I thought this would be the easiest part to pass. However, when he looked me in the eyes and told me "Well it appears to me you have control issues Mr. X." I knew it was going to be rocky. This guy, (his name is Doctor Wolfe, with an "E" I think, he runs a consulting firm out of Napa california) never went back and looked at how I actually answered all 1000 questions and why I answered them the way I did. The reason why I had scored so high on the "control issues" section (I can't remember the technical term for the section) was due to how I was taught to view a leader takes responsibilty for his actions and the actions of those in his unit. I was coming from a military background (1st Battalion 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, C Company Wpns Platoon) where I had served 3 combat tours in the infantry in Iraq. I remember well, one of the questions was basically : "I engage in small talk on the job." Where I come from, "small talk on the job" means talking on post, or sending or recieving or talking about non-mission related things while on patrol. Where I come from, that will get you killed, court-martialed or, even worse, one of your buddies killed or court martialed. YOU JUST DONT DO IT. So I answered, judging from my previous "job experience" very strongly, with a 1 or 5 whichever it was, that NO I do not engage in small talk on the job. LOL! Bad move on my part brothers! The test results actually SCOLDED ME for my "anti-social" behavior in the "work-place." I was taken aback, especially when the psych eval guy announced to me that he was done with the interview after only about 15 minutes. He was CONVINCED based on my test results that I was not fit to serve as a deputy sheriff for the Contra Costa County Sheriff's department. I was not allowed to explain myself, and he evaded my attempts to be "tenacious" and show him that I wanted the job and was misunderstood by telling me that I would have made a better lawyer than a sheriff's deputy. I understand that it wasn't him. Its the system of testing that they use. The psych eval guys are not "bad guys." They're just doing their jobs. They're just as lazy, and focused on getting back out to the golf course as all of us are (I hate golf but you get my drift).
The only thing I can really tell you in conclusion is tell the truth to the best of your ability and BE A MAN. I spent about 1000 dollars driving back and forth from Orange county where I live to Contra Costa County trying to get that stupid job. Sometimes things just dont work out. Don't get discouraged, its NOT YOUR FAULT! Just move on. I would like to note however, to all my fellow brother Marines and fellow infantry guys in the Army that CCC Sheriffs Department is probably not the best spot for us. They were pretty hostile to me because of my being in the Marines and I picked up a lot of strong hostility from the psych guy as well. I highly recommend the LAPD or the LA County Sheriff's Department. They're good people and they have more Marines and Soilders protecting and serving than just about anyone else (with the exception of Dallas PD, which are hiring by the way, in a big way). Remember, BE A MAN take your lumps and move on. If they don't like you, its better for both of you guys that you part ways. And for the love of god, you younger guys, DONT CHEAT! You erase ANY sympathy any senior or elder guy has for you if you start cheating or trying to "one up" the system by building up some fake profile.
God bless you guys and I wish all of you good luck in your endeavors!
1. Fail the MMPI test in California, and, for a lot of departments, its mandatory that you wait 6 months before you can apply to that specific department. I don't know how they do things over on the east coast, but over here, you can be as jolly "go git-em" as you want and it won't do crap for you. They don't care about tenacity. When they fail you on the psych you're looking at a long, long wait no matter how passionate you are. Sorry, thats facts.
2. The test is subjective. Theres about 1000 questions, however before they administer the test you're told that they REALIZE the test is subjective and that AFTER the test, your particular answers will be gone over in detail and "ironed" out with the psych doctor. In REALITY, all 1000+ answers are fed into a machine. That machine sorts, collates, and correllates your answers to a preset computer model of different personality profiles, and then spits out your results which are, GET THIS: Short paragraphs that are basically a cheat sheet for the psych eval guy to look at and size you up.
As user after user on this board has pointed out though, the questions which are used to make those paragraphs (which purport to be your "personality-in-a-can") are based on questions, the answers to which are judged on a very subjective basis. I love how some jerks on this board try and tell you to "tell the truth" and it'll all be "ok." Thats unrealistic. The very NATURE of these questions clips off portions and degrees of the truth from your answer.
For Example: Say I'm asked True or false (and by the way, most of the questions on the test I took were degree based questions, Like: "I like to take charge when others hold back" 1- VERY TRUE 2- STRONG TRUE 3- TRUE 4- NEUTRAL 5- NOT TRUE 6- NOT TRUE AT ALL etc) whether I have committed acts of violence. That for me, and I suspect for everyone else, would be true, with strict reading of interpretation. However, answering True to this question does not go under the "TRUE" category, its computed into the machine after you're done taking the test and is used to build a PSYCH PROFILE of you. Now, this one answer alone would not be enough to sink you. I suspect that the designers of the test were looking for someone trying to fake the test. However, not all of the questions are this easy to read. There are some that make you wonder "Well, yeah, thats true, I have to answer true but gosh, I know the machine isn't going to understand that I was 6 years old when I "stole" my dads car and that everyone laughed, I got spanked after I backed it up all of 5 feet into the street, learned my lesson and never did something like that again- it just asks true or false and unfortunately THATS ALL THE MACHINE KNOWS - I had to put down "T" for multiple "bad" category questions because of one silly incident that happened to me when I was a kid. Heres the killer though - the machine spits out all these small little paragraphs about your personality right? The psych guy comes in (he was late in my case) from the gold course or whereever. He's a white guy, in his sixties probably, I guessing well to-do. He asks his secretary "Are they done yet?" walks into his office with the results of the test which are the little paragraphs. He walks back out of his office, tells me to take off my tie and my jacket and sit down with him. Now, before I took the test I thought this would be the easiest part to pass. However, when he looked me in the eyes and told me "Well it appears to me you have control issues Mr. X." I knew it was going to be rocky. This guy, (his name is Doctor Wolfe, with an "E" I think, he runs a consulting firm out of Napa california) never went back and looked at how I actually answered all 1000 questions and why I answered them the way I did. The reason why I had scored so high on the "control issues" section (I can't remember the technical term for the section) was due to how I was taught to view a leader takes responsibilty for his actions and the actions of those in his unit. I was coming from a military background (1st Battalion 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, C Company Wpns Platoon) where I had served 3 combat tours in the infantry in Iraq. I remember well, one of the questions was basically : "I engage in small talk on the job." Where I come from, "small talk on the job" means talking on post, or sending or recieving or talking about non-mission related things while on patrol. Where I come from, that will get you killed, court-martialed or, even worse, one of your buddies killed or court martialed. YOU JUST DONT DO IT. So I answered, judging from my previous "job experience" very strongly, with a 1 or 5 whichever it was, that NO I do not engage in small talk on the job. LOL! Bad move on my part brothers! The test results actually SCOLDED ME for my "anti-social" behavior in the "work-place." I was taken aback, especially when the psych eval guy announced to me that he was done with the interview after only about 15 minutes. He was CONVINCED based on my test results that I was not fit to serve as a deputy sheriff for the Contra Costa County Sheriff's department. I was not allowed to explain myself, and he evaded my attempts to be "tenacious" and show him that I wanted the job and was misunderstood by telling me that I would have made a better lawyer than a sheriff's deputy. I understand that it wasn't him. Its the system of testing that they use. The psych eval guys are not "bad guys." They're just doing their jobs. They're just as lazy, and focused on getting back out to the golf course as all of us are (I hate golf but you get my drift).
The only thing I can really tell you in conclusion is tell the truth to the best of your ability and BE A MAN. I spent about 1000 dollars driving back and forth from Orange county where I live to Contra Costa County trying to get that stupid job. Sometimes things just dont work out. Don't get discouraged, its NOT YOUR FAULT! Just move on. I would like to note however, to all my fellow brother Marines and fellow infantry guys in the Army that CCC Sheriffs Department is probably not the best spot for us. They were pretty hostile to me because of my being in the Marines and I picked up a lot of strong hostility from the psych guy as well. I highly recommend the LAPD or the LA County Sheriff's Department. They're good people and they have more Marines and Soilders protecting and serving than just about anyone else (with the exception of Dallas PD, which are hiring by the way, in a big way). Remember, BE A MAN take your lumps and move on. If they don't like you, its better for both of you guys that you part ways. And for the love of god, you younger guys, DONT CHEAT! You erase ANY sympathy any senior or elder guy has for you if you start cheating or trying to "one up" the system by building up some fake profile.
God bless you guys and I wish all of you good luck in your endeavors!
Posted by DippityShurff
- Apr 15, 2007, 01:05 PMQuote from: CrisisDoc on Apr 12, 2007, 01:53 PMAmen, Dip! Gee, you don't think working in the field has made us cynical, do you? LOL
But of course not. I recognize that 99.9999999% of those incarcerated souls are simply innocent, falsely accused and totally misunderstood. And I always applaud those who would hit the master control button and let loose all that unwashed contagion upon the earth.
Hell, did I say that?
Posted by savagebanger
- Apr 13, 2007, 11:37 AMI took the NYPD Oral Psych the other day and was put on review for documents, the testor said that she could not make a decision because she wanted to review what my post combat check up looked like after Iraq. She said that if the paper work is not in by 4/19; I would be DQ'd..That was on a Thursday,
On Friday I contacted the Veterans Administration and actually went down to confirm that the documents were sent, On monday I went to see my investigator to hand in my packet.
She told me that the computer was down and that I should call her tuesday. So I waited and called on Tues and she said theres a problem with your psych!! And that I would be receiving a letter or something within 6 to 8 weeks? Im like HUUUUH? Then she says theres no need to call me, I'll call you if anything changes...
So Im just thinking at this point that maybe the Psych didnt get the paperwork from the V.A. or maybe she didnt change the status So I called the Psych the next day to find out if they received the documents and she dosen't come to the phone, she just tells the person that answers the phone to tell me that nothing else is needed from me.
So I call back my investigator later on that day and say: Do you know if my status has changed? I told her that I contacted Psych services and they told me that they got the paperwork and to contact you. She goes NO! without even checking and tells me that, that was the worst thing you can do! Canidates should never call Psych, OK...good bye!
So in my mind I say then why would they give us the numbers? And why would they tell us to check up on it? Anyway Im in a pickle....
Im nervous and you guys are right; if the interviewer dosen't like u its over. I know atleast 6 veterans that have been Dq'd by the NYPD already. They even had a story in the paper about it with a headline that read "GOOD enough for war but not for the NYPD!" In 05 or 06 in the post.
Any help?? or comments??
On Friday I contacted the Veterans Administration and actually went down to confirm that the documents were sent, On monday I went to see my investigator to hand in my packet.
She told me that the computer was down and that I should call her tuesday. So I waited and called on Tues and she said theres a problem with your psych!! And that I would be receiving a letter or something within 6 to 8 weeks? Im like HUUUUH? Then she says theres no need to call me, I'll call you if anything changes...
So Im just thinking at this point that maybe the Psych didnt get the paperwork from the V.A. or maybe she didnt change the status So I called the Psych the next day to find out if they received the documents and she dosen't come to the phone, she just tells the person that answers the phone to tell me that nothing else is needed from me.
So I call back my investigator later on that day and say: Do you know if my status has changed? I told her that I contacted Psych services and they told me that they got the paperwork and to contact you. She goes NO! without even checking and tells me that, that was the worst thing you can do! Canidates should never call Psych, OK...good bye!
So in my mind I say then why would they give us the numbers? And why would they tell us to check up on it? Anyway Im in a pickle....
Im nervous and you guys are right; if the interviewer dosen't like u its over. I know atleast 6 veterans that have been Dq'd by the NYPD already. They even had a story in the paper about it with a headline that read "GOOD enough for war but not for the NYPD!" In 05 or 06 in the post.
Any help?? or comments??
Posted by CrisisDoc
- Apr 12, 2007, 01:53 PMAmen, Dip! Gee, you don't think working in the field has made us cynical, do you? LOL 
Posted by DippityShurff
- Apr 11, 2007, 08:16 PMQuote from: CrisisDoc on Apr 10, 2007, 07:23 PMHey Dippity, welcome back.
I'm glad you were hired by the jail despite the test results, sad to hear that the female CO was suckered in by the convict. It just goes to show (in both cases) that more than just an MMPI is necessary when considering someone for employment!
thank you for the welcome back Doc. I am a long time contributor who has been away for awhile. I actually do the hiring at my agency and totally agree that there is **never** a substitute for a thorough BI. I did work in the jail about a hundred years ago though. I wanted to kill them all and let the Lord sort them out LOL.
Le Dip
Posted by CrisisDoc
- Apr 10, 2007, 07:23 PMHey Dippity, welcome back.
I'm glad you were hired by the jail despite the test results, sad to hear that the female CO was suckered in by the convict. It just goes to show (in both cases) that more than just an MMPI is necessary when considering someone for employment!
I'm glad you were hired by the jail despite the test results, sad to hear that the female CO was suckered in by the convict. It just goes to show (in both cases) that more than just an MMPI is necessary when considering someone for employment!
Posted by DippityShurff
- Apr 10, 2007, 06:03 PMHello Folks, nice to be back after a short sabbatical. I, of course was one of those who took the test and had a "probable attempt at faking bad". I answered the questions as honestly as I could. A little anecdote here. Our medical personnel in our Jail are hired by an outside company and they are required to go through a psychological testing process. The company uses this and does not, as far as I know, use a polygraph.
I am told we just escorted a female off the property today after she was caught both sending love letters to inmates and providing them with contraband. Slipped through the cracks I guess.
Dippity
I am told we just escorted a female off the property today after she was caught both sending love letters to inmates and providing them with contraband. Slipped through the cracks I guess.
Dippity
Posted by alterego1
- Mar 02, 2007, 03:45 AMQuote from: CrisisDoc on Jan 11, 2007, 05:00 PM
Why do you think that people are told they don't get jobs because of the results of the MMPI-2? I'll tell you. Because the interviewers DIDN'T LIKE YOU. Or perhaps your references sucked, or maybe your background check wasn't the best. Also reasons such as cultural differences, language barriers, the fact that you're a s-l-o-w talker, you can't spell your name to get your paycheck cashed, or the boss' nephew is applying for the same job as you. There are a lot of reasons why people don't get jobs. By the employer "blaming" the MMPI-2, it mostly absolves the hiring committee of any personal libility. Plain and simple. We all know that a potential employee isn't going to press charges against the MMPI-2, but if the job candidate finds out that an interviewer didn't like him or her --- well, then attorneys can be involved (or at least ugly letters can be sent up the chain of command).
This guy hit the nail on the head. It's a cop-out (pardon the pun) for not hiring someone, when they can't come up with a legitimate reason not to hire them. Hope that makes sense :-/
Posted by CrisisDoc
- Jan 16, 2007, 02:35 PMHi People_Rep,
Great note!
I know the blog has to do with the MMPI-2, but I want to take a little time to describe some of the people who I immediately put on the "no" list when they came through the prison looking for employment.
- The S-L-O-W talker. I don't mean, the guy who was thoughtful about his answers; I'm talking about the fella who took about 90 seconds to tell me his name and where he was from. Why did I not like this? Because if slow guy needed to tell me that an inmate escaped, was planning violence, or is otherwise involved in evil deeds... I need to know NOW. And face it; if you need 90 seconds to tell me your name and where you live, then what will happen if I ask you something that you'll really need to think about? A prison is a bad place for a slow guy.
- The people who told me they wanted a job with the State because of the benefits. Although it's a perk, don't make it sound like it's the primary reason why you want to work in a prison. Show some interest in the job, will ya?
-I swear to god, this happened. The guy who was in a wheelchair who applied to be a CO. Don't get me wrong, I am all for hiring folks with handicaps if they can do the job; but sending someone in a wheelchair into a building surrounded by violent sadistic offenders is not in anyone's best interest. Trust me, trust me, trust me. This fella would have won the Darwin award for certain. What does it say about his judgement? And if he can't keep himself safe, how can he be counted on to keep YOU (or other inmates) safe? A non-hands on job with inmates would have been a much better fit.
- The people who lied about misdemeanors on their legal records. Yes I have hired people with misdemeanors as long as they TOLD ME ABOUT THEM. I don't care if you were arrested in a bar-room brawl 15 years ago during college; in fact, I'm moderately impressed if you fess up and tell me you were young and stupid, but learned a lesson from it and never did it again (as long as you didn't). Don't think your criminal past will go overlooked no matter how long ago it has happened, and for the love of God, be prepared to tell me you were a weenie about it and have better problem solving skills NOW. Don't linger, just be honest and move on. BTW, your background report has all this info on it; the info doesn't "disappear" after x number of years. It's there, and I see it.
- The people who live an hour or more away, the people who are frequent job hoppers, the people who have such pre-identified potential problems that they are brought up in the job interview (ex: "I don't have a car and rely on my neightbor to drive me"; "I have to be out by 5:00 sharp everyday to pick up my kids at daycare"; "I have a medical condition and sometimes need to be off for a week or two at a time", etc.) Working a prison is not a normal 9-5 job; there are swing shifts, you are required to be there to watch the inmates (who's going to cover for you??), and if you are susceptible to stress/physical illness, this job won't be for you for the long run. You will get sick, and then you will quit.
See, I've done this for a long time. I know the red flags and how much paperwork is involved with removing an employee versus just not hiring them in the first place. Am I wrong about some folks? I'm sure I am, but as an employer I'd rather take the gamble on hiring someone who fits the profile as a whole as opposed to someone who has a huge gap in their profile. I'm not Superman, and I am not about "giving someone a chance". I am about hiring the best person for the job given the limited amount of knowledge I have about them. Working in a prison/law enforcement is an extremely serious matter; A mistake "to give someone a chance" could result in serious injury or death, and I'm not willing to risk myself. Or yourself.
On the upside? Once you're on "my team", I will protect you to the very end with every physical, legal, and emotional fiber of my being. Working in a prison isn't a job; it's a dedication. It's something that will be with you the rest of your life, and one wrong move can be a disaster. One right move can be a miracle.
My suggestion, sincerely, is to contact the agency that you had applied to and speak to one of the interviewers you had. Doesn't matter which one, and let them know you weren't offered the job this time around and that you'd really like to reapply. Ask the interviewer if there were any obvious weaknesses that you could work on improving in order to be a better candidate.
This impresses the pants off of people for a few reasons: (1) It shows that you have tenacity and REALLY want the job. You're not just some flake who applied for the job, didn't get it, and are moving on to work somewhere else. Employers LIKE someone who is dedicated to the cause. (2) It shows you have introspective qualities and are willing to accept constructive criticism to do better the next time around. DO NOT argue with the person no matter what they say about you, no matter how silly, misguided, or completely wrong the feedback is. Why? Because they can't hire you on the spot ("Jeepers, sorry, come on in you're hired") and they may need "proof" that they were wrong about you.
For example, many years ago I applied for a job with the Federal Bureau of Prisons in NY. I did everything they wanted, and received a generic rejection notice. I called the HR department and was told that the Discover Credit Card people had me as delinquent debtor for $57.00 that went back about 4 years. No kidding! I called Discover, had the matter cleared up, and reapplied for the same exact job in the same exact prison. Who would have thought? That's an example of something that I never would have known if I didn't ask - and also a situation where "evidence" was needed to clear up a weird mistake. Too bad I didn't know about this Discover Card issue a few months prior, because I just bought a new car and I'm sure my credit score (and resultant interest rate) was affected by Discover Card's "oopsie". Ah, those kookie credit card people.
But I digress. When you talk to your intrviewer, ask him/her what skills a great candidate can offer to the police department and how you can make yourself a more attractive candidate. Don't say, "what are YOU looking for" because now it's becoming a little too personal. Always look at the facility as if you're joining a team, beacuse that's what it is.
Honestly, People_Rep, it sounds like you may be a little hard on yourself. There are SO many reasons why a qualified candidate isn't offered a position that you are probably barking up the wrong tree. And don't forget, sometimes the interviewers aren't as invested in the process as they should be, either. It's a pain to interview people, a bigger pain to train them. If another candidate has prior job experience, a relative in the business, specialized college classes or training, has "veteran's credits" (comes from armed forces background), is asking for less money, or frankly their resume landed at the top of the stack due to a random toss of the mail sorter (versus a "priority one" situation)... well, those are all factors that can bump you. Don't be dicouraged!
I know this was way of the MMPI-2 track. Sorry!
Great note!
I know the blog has to do with the MMPI-2, but I want to take a little time to describe some of the people who I immediately put on the "no" list when they came through the prison looking for employment.
- The S-L-O-W talker. I don't mean, the guy who was thoughtful about his answers; I'm talking about the fella who took about 90 seconds to tell me his name and where he was from. Why did I not like this? Because if slow guy needed to tell me that an inmate escaped, was planning violence, or is otherwise involved in evil deeds... I need to know NOW. And face it; if you need 90 seconds to tell me your name and where you live, then what will happen if I ask you something that you'll really need to think about? A prison is a bad place for a slow guy.
- The people who told me they wanted a job with the State because of the benefits. Although it's a perk, don't make it sound like it's the primary reason why you want to work in a prison. Show some interest in the job, will ya?
-I swear to god, this happened. The guy who was in a wheelchair who applied to be a CO. Don't get me wrong, I am all for hiring folks with handicaps if they can do the job; but sending someone in a wheelchair into a building surrounded by violent sadistic offenders is not in anyone's best interest. Trust me, trust me, trust me. This fella would have won the Darwin award for certain. What does it say about his judgement? And if he can't keep himself safe, how can he be counted on to keep YOU (or other inmates) safe? A non-hands on job with inmates would have been a much better fit.
- The people who lied about misdemeanors on their legal records. Yes I have hired people with misdemeanors as long as they TOLD ME ABOUT THEM. I don't care if you were arrested in a bar-room brawl 15 years ago during college; in fact, I'm moderately impressed if you fess up and tell me you were young and stupid, but learned a lesson from it and never did it again (as long as you didn't). Don't think your criminal past will go overlooked no matter how long ago it has happened, and for the love of God, be prepared to tell me you were a weenie about it and have better problem solving skills NOW. Don't linger, just be honest and move on. BTW, your background report has all this info on it; the info doesn't "disappear" after x number of years. It's there, and I see it.
- The people who live an hour or more away, the people who are frequent job hoppers, the people who have such pre-identified potential problems that they are brought up in the job interview (ex: "I don't have a car and rely on my neightbor to drive me"; "I have to be out by 5:00 sharp everyday to pick up my kids at daycare"; "I have a medical condition and sometimes need to be off for a week or two at a time", etc.) Working a prison is not a normal 9-5 job; there are swing shifts, you are required to be there to watch the inmates (who's going to cover for you??), and if you are susceptible to stress/physical illness, this job won't be for you for the long run. You will get sick, and then you will quit.
See, I've done this for a long time. I know the red flags and how much paperwork is involved with removing an employee versus just not hiring them in the first place. Am I wrong about some folks? I'm sure I am, but as an employer I'd rather take the gamble on hiring someone who fits the profile as a whole as opposed to someone who has a huge gap in their profile. I'm not Superman, and I am not about "giving someone a chance". I am about hiring the best person for the job given the limited amount of knowledge I have about them. Working in a prison/law enforcement is an extremely serious matter; A mistake "to give someone a chance" could result in serious injury or death, and I'm not willing to risk myself. Or yourself.
On the upside? Once you're on "my team", I will protect you to the very end with every physical, legal, and emotional fiber of my being. Working in a prison isn't a job; it's a dedication. It's something that will be with you the rest of your life, and one wrong move can be a disaster. One right move can be a miracle.
My suggestion, sincerely, is to contact the agency that you had applied to and speak to one of the interviewers you had. Doesn't matter which one, and let them know you weren't offered the job this time around and that you'd really like to reapply. Ask the interviewer if there were any obvious weaknesses that you could work on improving in order to be a better candidate.
This impresses the pants off of people for a few reasons: (1) It shows that you have tenacity and REALLY want the job. You're not just some flake who applied for the job, didn't get it, and are moving on to work somewhere else. Employers LIKE someone who is dedicated to the cause. (2) It shows you have introspective qualities and are willing to accept constructive criticism to do better the next time around. DO NOT argue with the person no matter what they say about you, no matter how silly, misguided, or completely wrong the feedback is. Why? Because they can't hire you on the spot ("Jeepers, sorry, come on in you're hired") and they may need "proof" that they were wrong about you.
For example, many years ago I applied for a job with the Federal Bureau of Prisons in NY. I did everything they wanted, and received a generic rejection notice. I called the HR department and was told that the Discover Credit Card people had me as delinquent debtor for $57.00 that went back about 4 years. No kidding! I called Discover, had the matter cleared up, and reapplied for the same exact job in the same exact prison. Who would have thought? That's an example of something that I never would have known if I didn't ask - and also a situation where "evidence" was needed to clear up a weird mistake. Too bad I didn't know about this Discover Card issue a few months prior, because I just bought a new car and I'm sure my credit score (and resultant interest rate) was affected by Discover Card's "oopsie". Ah, those kookie credit card people.
But I digress. When you talk to your intrviewer, ask him/her what skills a great candidate can offer to the police department and how you can make yourself a more attractive candidate. Don't say, "what are YOU looking for" because now it's becoming a little too personal. Always look at the facility as if you're joining a team, beacuse that's what it is.
Honestly, People_Rep, it sounds like you may be a little hard on yourself. There are SO many reasons why a qualified candidate isn't offered a position that you are probably barking up the wrong tree. And don't forget, sometimes the interviewers aren't as invested in the process as they should be, either. It's a pain to interview people, a bigger pain to train them. If another candidate has prior job experience, a relative in the business, specialized college classes or training, has "veteran's credits" (comes from armed forces background), is asking for less money, or frankly their resume landed at the top of the stack due to a random toss of the mail sorter (versus a "priority one" situation)... well, those are all factors that can bump you. Don't be dicouraged!
I know this was way of the MMPI-2 track. Sorry!
Posted by People_Rep.
- Jan 15, 2007, 05:52 PMCrisisDoc:
what are some things you look for that you believe make a good candidate (while you're interviewing)?
i honestly believe that i would make a great police officer and when i found out that i wasn't going on with that agency i was very surprised. now that the agency never said," you failed your pysch. test," but i assumed that to be the reason why i wasn't going on to the next step b-c it was my last step. i believe after i left that psych. test that everything went as planned. i mean i don't know what kind of tests the interviewer might give you, as a candidate, while they interview you, but i sat there for over an hour talking to this psychologist and at no point did i think, "man i'm doing bad." we had a solid conversation. and on another note, i never really messed up on any of my written tests, like you said, answering "yes" to a question like, i hear voice in my head. i think the most disturbing thing about this whole process is that the agency can't give you an explanation to why you're not moving on, instead they send you a lame letter stating some B-S reason. How, as a candidate trying to get hired, can you improve then, if you don't know where it supposedly went wrong? This is why i came on this web site, to hopefully find out what, how, where, or anything i can can do to improve on my pysch test. so crisisdoc you have any advise?
what are some things you look for that you believe make a good candidate (while you're interviewing)?
i honestly believe that i would make a great police officer and when i found out that i wasn't going on with that agency i was very surprised. now that the agency never said," you failed your pysch. test," but i assumed that to be the reason why i wasn't going on to the next step b-c it was my last step. i believe after i left that psych. test that everything went as planned. i mean i don't know what kind of tests the interviewer might give you, as a candidate, while they interview you, but i sat there for over an hour talking to this psychologist and at no point did i think, "man i'm doing bad." we had a solid conversation. and on another note, i never really messed up on any of my written tests, like you said, answering "yes" to a question like, i hear voice in my head. i think the most disturbing thing about this whole process is that the agency can't give you an explanation to why you're not moving on, instead they send you a lame letter stating some B-S reason. How, as a candidate trying to get hired, can you improve then, if you don't know where it supposedly went wrong? This is why i came on this web site, to hopefully find out what, how, where, or anything i can can do to improve on my pysch test. so crisisdoc you have any advise?
Posted by CrisisDoc
- Jan 12, 2007, 05:45 PMOnesimus,
Ah, there you go... who needs an MMPI-2 to assess YOUR personality? Why so hostile?
I actually never used the MMPI-2 as a scapegoat for not hiring someone; I just told the committee why I think the person would be bad for the job. Unless they really flunked the MMPI-2 (again, indicating "true" to a question such as "I like killing people") if I thought the person was a crackerjack candidate... well they're hired (at least that would be my vote).
Frankly, you would not believe the weenies that apply for jobs at a prison. If you would like a description of some of the folks who lacked two brain cells to rub together whom I had the complete amusement of interviewing, please let me know. MMPI-2 results not withstanding, I would NEVER want one of those bozos watching my back.
And you wouldn't want them watching your back, either.
So, regardless if the HR Dept tells them they scored poorly on the MMPI-2 or if they were just politely told that someone more qualified had gotten the job.. the bottom line is that I feel 100% confident that I did my part to keep the employees and citizens safe.
Sorry if that means anyone's feelings were hurt... but this may have nothing to to with the MMPI-2 anymore.
Ah, there you go... who needs an MMPI-2 to assess YOUR personality? Why so hostile?
I actually never used the MMPI-2 as a scapegoat for not hiring someone; I just told the committee why I think the person would be bad for the job. Unless they really flunked the MMPI-2 (again, indicating "true" to a question such as "I like killing people") if I thought the person was a crackerjack candidate... well they're hired (at least that would be my vote).
Frankly, you would not believe the weenies that apply for jobs at a prison. If you would like a description of some of the folks who lacked two brain cells to rub together whom I had the complete amusement of interviewing, please let me know. MMPI-2 results not withstanding, I would NEVER want one of those bozos watching my back.
And you wouldn't want them watching your back, either.
So, regardless if the HR Dept tells them they scored poorly on the MMPI-2 or if they were just politely told that someone more qualified had gotten the job.. the bottom line is that I feel 100% confident that I did my part to keep the employees and citizens safe.
Sorry if that means anyone's feelings were hurt... but this may have nothing to to with the MMPI-2 anymore.