Hi Paula... for clarification... you are a candidate?

30/600?

How many posts are there to fill?

In reply to Steve Bridger:

Hi Steve. Thanks for the post. One position. If I haven’t heard it wrong there were 600 applications and 30 so far to be selected for the interview.

In reply to Paula:

They're short-listing (long-listing?) 30 people for one role?

Re-reading the second paragraph of your opening post... I'm still a bit confused. At any rate, they sound like long odds, I'm afraid.

In reply to Steve Bridger:

Yes long listing. They selected so many people for interviews and there are I think at least three stages of the interview it’s very competitive. But I just hope that they do conduct it in a fair way.

In reply to Paula:

Not sure there's anything you can do, Paula. But good luck!

In reply to Paula:

Frankly I am not sure I would work for a company that interviewed 30 people for one job - its shows amazing lack of discipline, process and is incredibly unfair to the candidates. If you interview 30 people for an hour that's at least a working week (likely more with breaks) taken up - its hugely inefficient. If there are three stages then maybe a months solid work for a couple of people - madness!

If there is one job then its highly likely the process wont be "fair" - but I am sure they will have a scoring mechanism at the and of each interview against a set of competencies and when they have interviewed enough people they will review all scores and progress with a smaller number...

Even if there were 5 jobs its still a high ratio...the only way it might make sense is if this is some sort of graduate/management entry scheme, or mass recruitment (say the army or fire service or a new retail store)  where they have vacancies well into double figures.

In reply to Keith:

Along with Keith's wise observations I would add that - as an ex recruiter - if they're interviewing 30 people for one post it seems to me they neither have a clue about what they're looking for nor are they likely to make a decision at the end of the process. It sounds like a nightmare scenario to me.

In reply to Anna:

Agreed, it would put me off. At least they told you though, I wouldn't normally divulge to a candidate how many others we're seeing and hate it when they ask this (especially at 2nd stage when its obviously only going to be 1 or 2 others but sometimes no others which is then quite awkward to answer!)

I also suspect the company may be a little disappointed with the eventual hire. Not because that person will be a bad choice or not do well, but I think if you long list 30 out of 600 and go through such a rigourous process to select, you might be expecting them to be instantly brilliant at everything. As soon as they need some support or guidance on something one might be tempted to think 'oh...we went through all that to find our perfect candidate and they're not perfect!' There would usually be many people who can do a good job in almost any post you care to think of, so starting with 600 and seeing 30 doesn't mean the one you go with is the only person who would be a great fit or that they will have super-human qualities going for them!

In reply to Anna:

Not to mention wasting candidates time. Most employers don’t seem to take in to account that if their recruitment process is flawed and bloated with too many interviews they waste not only their time but that of other people.