(no subject)

[chess]

The mock interview was as pointless and useless as predicted. I knew it was going to be bad when the interviewers admitted in the first minute that they didn't know much about computers. They seemed to think that I'd want to be a secondary school teacher if I couldn't be a university lecturer, and kept asking me odd questions about teaching classes. They also asked me about current events, so I got to hold forth on why America should at the very least work out why it wants to bomb Iraq before doing so, and how I think the exam board were correct in the A-level fiasco and it's only because of media pressure that the govt have suddenly decided that they wanted something different to happen. I do think I'm good at spouting opinions with only a tenuous grasph of the relevant facts, if that.

I don't like writing LJ entries that are just one big paragraph, but over half of that paragraph is just one sentance, and the first bit looks silly on its own.

Comments

[marble.livejournal.com]

For job interviews it is possible/likely that you'll be interviewed by a manager who doesn't know the subject. It's a Good Thing to know more than the people interviewing you:)

[passage.livejournal.com]

Rest assured that the interviewers at Cambridge will only dimly recall what secondary school is, and will probably not know that anyone is talking about picking on Iraq.

Neil

[chess]

Given that I plan to not be applying for a job anytime in the next three years (and perhaps the next five or six if I can get myself a PhD place), I wasn't going for the job interview practice :). If that's what a job interview is like I don't think I'll have much trouble with them, though, because I apparently did pretty well.

[marble.livejournal.com]

Yay! I knew you would:)

[naath.livejournal.com]

If that's the PA interview, I talked for 1/2 an hour on why the German rail timetable meant that they couldn't win WWII. It was of no use as a subkect interview, but was an interesting excersise in talking to scary ppl...

Spouting opinions is fun, but you need *some* facts to back them up. ;)

[haggis.livejournal.com]

why the German rail timetable meant that they couldn't win WWII

OK, now I have to know, why did the German rail timetable meant that they couldn't win WWII?

[haggis.livejournal.com]

*hugs*

I'm glad it went well.

Re:

[naath.livejournal.com]

Ah, you see, you have troupes right. But they tend to not be where you need them. So you have to move them OK. Now, if you were Caesar you'd just make them march reall fast, but you can't do that if you're Hitler because, well, everyone else is using tanks and trains etc.

So basically they had to move a lot of men fast so they used the train system. Which wasn't great.

The reall problem was that they were fighting a war on two fronts (and making big Napoleon style mistakes on one of them), and needed to move ppl b/w the two. They were also using the rail system to move Jews etc. around the place.

The rail system was rather over stretched, hindering troup (and also supply) movement around Germany.

This isn't THE reason why they lost, but it's one of many little reasons that all add up.

And I read it somewhere, so you'll have to believe it *grin*

Re:

[haggis.livejournal.com]

Interesting. I read a similar theory which explains why Europe leapt ahead of Japan/China in the last millennium (in AD 1000, they were the most advanced civilisation but between then and 2000, Europe was.) It argued that two technologies made that difference - clocks (clockmaking -> watchmaking -> precision engineering) and glass (glass -> microscopes/telescopes -> scientific discoveries and also windows/spectacles -> longer working days and lives). I know there are other factors but it's a persuasive theory.