Ad JS

Collapse

Leaderboard

Collapse

Leaderboard Tablet

Collapse

Leaderboard Mobile

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hiring Challenges

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hiring Challenges

    Hello all,

    i have had multiple challenges in my attempts to becoming an officer, as many do, and i am hoping for some insight to determine if I am just wasting everyone's time. Some background, this weekend I was recomdended by a recruiter to withdraw from candidacy for a nearby police department, the reason was that even though my background didn't disqualify me, several aspects that weren't necessarily disqualifiers would cause me to be overlooked for "more qualified candidates". She said, due to my history, my chances of getting selected were pretty much zero, even though none of it was necessarily enough to deny me from proceeding (would have been nice to know prior to passing the pelletB and the PAT). This was my second time failing with this department (the first time I also passed the pellet B and the PAT, but failed the oral interview, which is my own fault) but it is the second time I have been disqualified due to background issues.

    What I am concerned with is, my record is thus, their issue was with three expired registration tickets I got three years ago, plus some old bad debt that is already deep into the process of being resolved (preexisting debt consolidation). Even though I am not disqualified and still applicable, am I still unlikely to succeed because of such arbitrary reasons? Is work history, educational records and character references meaningless when competing against people who weren't inundated in temporary periods of financial hardship? Or did I find and fail with atypical departments that don't look for quality, but prefer unproductive methods of hiring?

    Hopefully I find an answer soon, while an undergrad my ambition has always been to work in civil service, and even since graduating I've spent nearly seven years in the private sector in municipal contracts and I have received multiple accolades from a variety of entities and non profits and I have always made a point of dedicating myself to the community. To be told I'm less qualified then someone simply for having faced a brief period of financial hardship could cause me to lose faith in the civil service system.

  • #2
    First, you have to understand that once the background is completed, being passed over for "other more qualified candidates" is the polite and politically correct way of saying you have been disqualified. The "other more qualified" candidates are applicants who don't have anything in their personal history that meets the criteria for disqualification.

    Based solely on what you have posted, three expired reg cites in one year combined with debt issues suggest a lot of disqualifying factors, the biggest ones being a lack of personal responsibility and difficulty overcoming problems and adversity. This is a situation where time heals most wounds. If you can demonstrate a five year record of no traffic citations/arrests, good employment, good credit, etc., you will have a much better chance.

    Going too far is half the pleasure of not getting anywhere

    Comment


    • #3
      After you read L-1's response a couple times you can read mine

      you probably won't be real happy with my answer, but here it is



      Originally posted by CouldBeTheBest View Post
      Hello all,

      i have had multiple challenges in my attempts to becoming an officer, as many do, and i am hoping for some insight to determine if I am just wasting everyone's time. Some background, this weekend I was recomdended by a recruiter to withdraw from candidacy for a nearby police department, the reason was that even though my background didn't disqualify me, several aspects that weren't necessarily disqualifiers would cause me to be overlooked for "more qualified candidates". She said, due to my history, my chances of getting selected were pretty much zero, even though none of it was necessarily enough to deny me from proceeding (would have been nice to know prior to passing the pelletB and the PAT). This was my second time failing with this department (the first time I also passed the pellet B and the PAT, but failed the oral interview, which is my own fault) but it is the second time I have been disqualified due to background issues.
      Being dropped from consideration a second time for an agency probably should tell you that THAT AGENCY doesn't want you working for them

      Most likely whatever "considerations" they are using to reject you are major enough in their system for them to keep finding "more qualified candidates" than you each and every time you try


      Originally posted by CouldBeTheBest View Post
      What I am concerned with is, my record is thus, their issue was with three expired registration tickets I got three years ago, plus some old bad debt that is already deep into the process of being resolved (preexisting debt consolidation).
      Old "bad debt" is really bad for a law enforcement candidate.............since it is NOT resolved, it doesn't matter if it is BEING resolved .

      Expired registrations show a lack of responsibility

      Both situations raise flags in Law Enforcement administrators minds

      Originally posted by CouldBeTheBest View Post
      Even though I am not disqualified and still applicable, am I still unlikely to succeed because of such arbitrary reasons?
      They are not arbitrary reasons. These are "considerations" the agency feels should not exist in candidates for employment at their agency. Those "considerations" normally are rooted in past experiences of other employees and/or other law enforcement agencies

      Oh, yea you HAVE been disqualified by this agency even if they don't wish to use that term. They don't want you working for them

      Originally posted by CouldBeTheBest View Post
      Is work history, educational records and character references meaningless when competing against people who weren't inundated in temporary periods of financial hardship?
      Its the entire package the agency is considering . 100 "atta boys" doesn't cancel out 1 "oh crap".
      Your total packing is lacking and that is what the agency is looking at.

      This isn't about some other mythical candidate. It doesn't matter what Candidate 375's history is like. You are being judged on YOUR merits.

      Originally posted by CouldBeTheBest View Post

      Or did I find and fail with atypical departments that don't look for quality, but prefer unproductive methods of hiring?/
      Your agency is typical. They are looking for quality. They feel your "quality' is lacking and not up to their standards

      Originally posted by CouldBeTheBest View Post
      Hopefully I find an answer soon, while an undergrad my ambition has always been to work in civil service, and even since graduating I've spent nearly seven years in the private sector in municipal contracts and I have received multiple accolades from a variety of entities and non profits and I have always made a point of dedicating myself to the community. To be told I'm less qualified then someone simply for having faced a brief period of financial hardship could cause me to lose faith in the civil service system.
      Not everyone is cut out for this profession .

      The civil service system is designed to find the best candidates out of the pool without using "emotion" or "good ole boy" pressure.

      From what I see from your post...................you just are not a good candidate at this time

      Take care of your issues and try again after they are resolved
      Last edited by Iowa #1603; 10-23-2017, 06:14 PM.
      Since some people need to be told by notes in crayon .......Don't PM me with without prior permission. If you can't discuss the situation in the open forum ----it must not be that important

      My new word for the day is FOCUS, when someone irritates you tell them to FOCUS

      Comment


      • #4
        Frankly I am grateful for the direct and candid nature of these responses. It wouldn't help me at all if industry professionals were indirect and/or sugar coated the facts (not that LEO's are known for holding back). Apparently this professional endeavor is most likely a waste of time considering my background and it's helpful that this was pointed out to me before I continue to request time off work for the various exams the different departments require. Considering your insider knowledge I wouldn't dare to contest or argue what either one of you have said, I'm an outsider and there's nothing more obnoxious then someone pretending to know more than the experts.

        I do have one disagreement however, I still consider such standards arbitrary and stand by my ascertation that the mistakes I made in my brief period of financial difficulty have no bearings on my ability to be an exemplary officer with the utmost integrity, however no amount of self pity or complaining is going to change these hiring standards, and I'm clearly wasting everyone's time. Thank you gentlemen for taking the time to read my extensive and overly wordy post, and even even bigger thanks for showing me the courtesy of addressing my inquiry so throughly and completely, I really do appreciate it.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by CouldBeTheBest View Post
          I do have one disagreement however, I still consider such standards arbitrary and stand by my ascertation that the mistakes I made in my brief period of financial difficulty have no bearings on my ability to be an exemplary officer with the utmost integrity, however no amount of self pity or complaining is going to change these hiring standards, and I'm clearly wasting everyone's time. Thank you gentlemen for taking the time to read my extensive and overly wordy post, and even even bigger thanks for showing me the courtesy of addressing my inquiry so throughly and completely, I really do appreciate it.
          Most Police administrators disagree with you...... I might add candidly that it is based on lots of data over many years

          Good luck
          Since some people need to be told by notes in crayon .......Don't PM me with without prior permission. If you can't discuss the situation in the open forum ----it must not be that important

          My new word for the day is FOCUS, when someone irritates you tell them to FOCUS

          Comment


          • #6
            They’re not arbitrary. They’ve held up for the past 100 years or so... That’s why they are called STANDARDS.
            Now go home and get your shine box!

            Comment

            MR300x250 Tablet

            Collapse

            What's Going On

            Collapse

            There are currently 11603 users online. 470 members and 11133 guests.

            Most users ever online was 19,482 at 12:44 PM on 09-29-2011.

            Welcome Ad

            Collapse
            Working...
            X