Thoughts please failed 2nd MMI

[JamesTT]

When I had my MMI I asked what feedback I would get if I failed and was told that they can't provide specific information but would give a reason for failure (which sections failed). Communication covers listening, assertiveness, clarity and information sharing.

Congratulations I see from another thread you have passed good on you. Even breaking that down into what it covers is much more comprehensive than just communication.

Had you been unsuccesful and received limited feedback but were aware of others being given more detail would you not be a little peturbed?

 

[Dave999]

I agree that feedback should be fair across the board, if I had failed I think I would of recieved similar to what you were given.

 

[RailwayDog]

As I have said it is frustrating to have passed the majority of the assessment, then 2 interviews with separate driver managers, to then fail the MMI twice.

Also I was encouraged by HR to take the resit as soon as I could

James it seems like you have been a victim of having your assessment undertaken by a private company who shall remain nameless who undertake assessments for TOC's who don't have qualified staff to undertake the assessments in-house. Said company have a significantly higher failure rate than TOC's who undertake their own assessments and are known to fail for pedantic reasons such as communication, essentially you could have gone through the same interview with an assessor who actually wanted you to pass and things could have been very different! It is completely understandable why the desire by them is to fail not pass, let's face it the more they fail the more assessments they need to do so the more money they make! Feedback from the said company is also notoriously slow and the TOC is just the middle man.

In addition it sounds like you gave a great DM interview which is why HR were keen for you to re-sit however they had no input in the MMI......it sounds very strange to me that someone could pass a DM interview where communication is of course assessed and then fail an MMI.....unless of course an assessor was keen to up their failure rate and keep the £'s rolling in! I imagine the DM and HR were very frustrated at your failure however without the expert knowledge to challenge or internal MMI capability there is nothing they can do.

I'm sorry this has clearly had such an impact on you James, if it wasn't too late I'd suggest going to a TOC who undertakes their own assessments just to get them done in a fair way!!! Many TOC's hands are tied due to not having the expertise in-house, hopefully sooner or later they will all realise what's happening when they out-source, it's widely known by all those in HR in the industry!

 

[steviebuk]

James it seems like you have been a victim of having your assessment undertaken by a private company who shall remain nameless who undertake assessments for TOC's who don't have qualified staff to undertake the assessments in-house. Said company have a significantly higher failure rate than TOC's who undertake their own assessments and are known to fail for pedantic reasons such as communication, essentially you could have gone through the same interview with an assessor who actually wanted you to pass and things could have been very different! It is completely understandable why the desire by them is to fail not pass, let's face it the more they fail the more assessments they need to do so the more money they make! Feedback from the said company is also notoriously slow and the TOC is just the middle man.

In addition it sounds like you gave a great DM interview which is why HR were keen for you to re-sit however they had no input in the MMI......it sounds very strange to me that someone could pass a DM interview where communication is of course assessed and then fail an MMI.....unless of course an assessor was keen to up their failure rate and keep the £'s rolling in! I imagine the DM and HR were very frustrated at your failure however without the expert knowledge to challenge or internal MMI capability there is nothing they can do.

I'm sorry this has clearly had such an impact on you James, if it wasn't too late I'd suggest going to a TOC who undertakes their own assessments just to get them done in a fair way!!! Many TOC's hands are tied due to not having the expertise in-house, hopefully sooner or later they will all realise what's happening when they out-source, it's widely known by all those in HR in the industry!

Funny that, I was just researching said private assessment company, who state on their website that they are non profit making company!!

 

[RailwayDog]

Funny that, I was just researching said private assessment company, who state on their website that they are non profit making company!!

Their accounts on Companies House say different!

 

[JohnFM]

Firstly I know this post will sound like sour grapes but I don't feel that way I just want to give my view.

I went for a trainee driver's job last year and past all of the 'practical' parts of the assessment process. I then past a line manager interview and from the feedback was told by HR. I had impressed the managers and they were looking forward to working with me. Unfortunately I totally screwed up my MMI. I knew within the first few minutes I had messed up but soldiered on. I was not surprised to hear that I had failed, but was disappointed in the feedback. The feedback consisted of a one word answer 'communication'. Anyway 6 months later I retook the MMI, having passed a line manager interview with another depot. Sadly I failed that MMI as well. I did feel it went better and the feedback was I improved but still fell short on the communication aspect. I did get more detailed feedback, however the criticism was I over the elaborated answers.
Now I know that these are comments usually made by people who don't progress but some people have trotted out the following mantra.
'You only progress if your face fits'. I am aware that the driver assessments are basically a pyschological test of one's suitability to do the role. Having passed all tests and a DM interview I would have thought that my suitability was pretty much without question. Is it the case that actually the MMI is the real test? Also I fell down on the communication aspect. My question is surely during the training. Trainee drivers whilst under supervision of their DI etc. Will be in scenarios where they communicate with the following. Signaller, conductor, manager and other staff. Surely improving how one communicates with these people is part of the training? Is more the case that the MMI is the real test of if ones face fits, lets say from a psychological point of view? If this is the case would it not be fairer to say. Yes you have passed all these tests however we don't deem you suitable and this is why, giving more in depth feed back and in addition what roles ones personality type they feel would be akin to

To be honest you displayed exactly why you failed with this post. You ramble on and on and on. Three of your posts on this very thread show why you failed.

It does not matter if you can do public announcements.
It does not matter what other folk did.
It does not matter if you have communicated previously what you believe to be properly to other railway staff. (Might be interesting to ask them if you go on and on and on and on though )

Yes, you might be good for a quiz on a late train but what good is that?

In your case, based on your feedback, you have wittered on and on and on. You showed the assessors that you do not know when to stop. The fact that you do not know how to accept it and continue to jabber on and on and on is testament to the fact that the assessors probably got it right.

 

[ComUtoR]

James it seems like you have been a victim of having your assessment undertaken by a private company who shall remain nameless who undertake assessments for TOC's who don't have qualified staff to undertake the assessments in-house.

Please state said company and TOC. It would be important for others not to fall into the same trap and would be interesting to see if James can confirm if it was this company.

If this company is doing something wrong then it may be worth reporting it and having the result overturned. If anything report it to the TOC concerned as they may be best placed to ask questions and pull any contract if necessary.

 

[andy-ed]

I really feel for you. It is terrible when you are unable to move forward when feedback is witheld. Especially when attempts at the MMI are limited and have such an impact.

This document gives you all you need to get the feedback you are 'entitled to' :
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&r...23qLf6Ppw&sig2=57kXdgOlppIVa7D01rHy4Q&cad=rja

Please take note of the following points in the document :

61. Will Railway Assessment Centres and employers be prejudiced by following the manual guidance and refusing to release specific WCT, SJE and MMI data to candidates during feedback?
No. Railway Assessment Centres and employers should not be prejudicing their positions by refusing to release WCT, SJE and MMI scores and details other than in response to a formal subject access request, providing that this policy is adopted consistent across the board for all candidates.

62. Are the WCT, SJE and MMI data subject to the Data Protection Act 1998?
Yes. Information about a particular candidate’s performance in the WCT, SJE and MMI is the personal data of that candidate. Candidates have the right to make a ‘subject access request’ in writing. If they do this, all the personal data held about the candidate should be provided to them. This should include the candidates’ scores/ratings on all assessments. Interviewers’ comments, such as the contents of the ‘Notes’ section on the MMI score sheets will also need to be released. The WCT scoring sheet and SJE RIN should not be released to the candidate, all of their personal data should be extracted and presented to them in a different format. The logic of the automated scoring of the SJE does not need to be released, because it does not form the ‘sole basis’ for a decision affecting the candidate.
Other personal data, not related to the WCT, SJE or MMI would also need to be released according to the Data Protection Act.

 

[JamesTT]

James it seems like you have been a victim of having your assessment undertaken by a private company who shall remain nameless who undertake assessments for TOC's who don't have qualified staff to undertake the assessments in-house. Said company have a significantly higher failure rate than TOC's who undertake their own assessments and are known to fail for pedantic reasons such as communication, essentially you could have gone through the same interview with an assessor who actually wanted you to pass and things could have been very different! It is completely understandable why the desire by them is to fail not pass, let's face it the more they fail the more assessments they need to do so the more money they make! Feedback from the said company is also notoriously slow and the TOC is just the middle man.

In addition it sounds like you gave a great DM interview which is why HR were keen for you to re-sit however they had no input in the MMI......it sounds very strange to me that someone could pass a DM interview where communication is of course assessed and then fail an MMI.....unless of course an assessor was keen to up their failure rate and keep the £'s rolling in! I imagine the DM and HR were very frustrated at your failure however without the expert knowledge to challenge or internal MMI capability there is nothing they can do.

I'm sorry this has clearly had such an impact on you James, if it wasn't too late I'd suggest going to a TOC who undertakes their own assessments just to get them done in a fair way!!! Many TOC's hands are tied due to not having the expertise in-house, hopefully sooner or later they will all realise what's happening when they out-source, it's widely known by all those in HR in the industry!

Thank you for being one of the only people that has given constructive feedback. Rather than trolling me, I would rather not say who did the assessment.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

To be honest you displayed exactly why you failed with this post. You ramble on and on and on. Three of your posts on this very thread show why you failed.

It does not matter if you can do public announcements.
It does not matter what other folk did.
It does not matter if you have communicated previously what you believe to be properly to other railway staff. (Might be interesting to ask them if you go on and on and on and on though )

Yes, you might be good for a quiz on a late train but what good is that?

In your case, based on your feedback, you have wittered on and on and on. You showed the assessors that you do not know when to stop. The fact that you do not know how to accept it and continue to jabber on and on and on is testament to the fact that the assessors probably got it right.

In my original post I don't repeat myself. Then in subsequent posts in response to comments made I did reiterate some points I made.
Your post is downright nasty offers no constructive points well a **** take veiled as one. I expect you will be pleased with that response because that is exactly the reaction you were hoping for
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I really feel for you. It is terrible when you are unable to move forward when feedback is witheld. Especially when attempts at the MMI are limited and have such an impact.

This document gives you all you need to get the feedback you are 'entitled to' :
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&r...23qLf6Ppw&sig2=57kXdgOlppIVa7D01rHy4Q&cad=rja

Please take note of the following points in the document :

61. Will Railway Assessment Centres and employers be prejudiced by following the manual guidance and refusing to release specific WCT, SJE and MMI data to candidates during feedback?
No. Railway Assessment Centres and employers should not be prejudicing their positions by refusing to release WCT, SJE and MMI scores and details other than in response to a formal subject access request, providing that this policy is adopted consistent across the board for all candidates.

62. Are the WCT, SJE and MMI data subject to the Data Protection Act 1998?
Yes. Information about a particular candidate’s performance in the WCT, SJE and MMI is the personal data of that candidate. Candidates have the right to make a ‘subject access request’ in writing. If they do this, all the personal data held about the candidate should be provided to them. This should include the candidates’ scores/ratings on all assessments. Interviewers’ comments, such as the contents of the ‘Notes’ section on the MMI score sheets will also need to be released. The WCT scoring sheet and SJE RIN should not be released to the candidate, all of their personal data should be extracted and presented to them in a different format. The logic of the automated scoring of the SJE does not need to be released, because it does not form the ‘sole basis’ for a decision affecting the candidate.
Other personal data, not related to the WCT, SJE or MMI would also need to be released according to the Data Protection Act.[/QUOTE

As said before what gets to me is others have mentioned feedback that advised them of specific question or questions they failed on.
I could see the SJE print out and my responses were in the good banding

 

[JohnFM]

In my original post I don't repeat myself. Then in subsequent posts in response to comments made I did reiterate some points I made.
Your post is downright nasty offers no constructive points well a **** take veiled as one. I expect you will be pleased with that response because that is exactly the reaction you were hoping for.

I wasn't looking for a reaction, and I most definitely was not trolling you. I was only telling you where you went wrong.

Please note "The logic of the automated scoring of the SJE does not need to be released, because it does not form the ‘sole basis’ for a decision affecting the candidate."

Your lack of understanding is also clear - I did not state that you repeated yourself. You are quite verbose in all of your posts.

What is also clear is that you cannot take any criticism, at all.

Instead, you are looking for ways in which to compare yourself to others and therefore prove that the assessors got it wrong.

The assessors know what they are looking for. Twice you proved to them that you are not what they are looking for.

What is perfectly clear in your cut and paste for the psychometric testing FAQ's, that Andy provided, is that you also do not understand what it is you're supposed to do. Asking for feedback is NOT a Subject Access Request, which, again, proves that you do not understand.

This is not being a troll or just posting verbiage just to wind you up, it is intended for you to look at yourself and what you did wrong.

 

[andy-ed]

Did you miss the significance of the document I linked?

From my understanding. Correct me if i'm wrong. By the OPC's own policies and Data Protection legislation; you are entitled to get copies of the following information, provising you submit a 'Subject access request' under the Data Protection Act. https://ico.org.uk/for-organisation...on/principle-6-rights/subject-access-request/

Information about a particular candidate’s performance in the WCT, SJE and MMI is the personal data of that candidate. Candidates have the right to make a ‘subject access request’ in writing. If they do this, all the personal data held about the candidate should be provided to them. This should include the candidates’ scores/ratings on all assessments. Interviewers’ comments, such as the contents of the ‘Notes’ section on the MMI score sheets will also need to be released. The WCT scoring sheet and SJE RIN should not be released to the candidate, all of their personal data should be extracted and presented to them in a different format. The logic of the automated scoring of the SJE does not need to be released, because it does not form the ‘sole basis’ for a decision affecting the candidate.
Other personal data, not related to the WCT, SJE or MMI would also need to be released according to the Data Protection Act.

 

[RailwayDog]

In my opinion to get the best customer service and to go through a process where people genuinely want to succeed it's best to go to an assessment centre where the assessments are undertaken by internal recruitment staff.

The following document details which companies have their own assessors who can undertake the process.

http://www.rssb.co.uk/Library/group...uct-assessments-according-to-ris-3751-tom.pdf

Even with that list companies occasionally outsource, London Midland don't tend to do their own or South West Trains. In my experience you can rely on Scotrail, Southern, Southeastern, ATW, FGW and DB Schenker. A lot can be said about the order of assessment too, I've heard that ATW now undertake the assessment as the last part of the process so by that stage a lot of time and effort has been invested in candidates so they genuinely want to give jobs to everyone going through the process!

 

[red2005]

Gotta say i am with johnfm here!

no one has trolled you.....i know i certainly haven't.....what you have got to understand about this place is when you post something on here, especially when you are looking for advice people will only ever give you honest advice or in some cases constructive criticism.

If you honestly want a career on the railway you will have to learn to take both!one of the questions i was asked in my interview was what do you consider your weakest point to which i said i used to take criticism to heart instead of using it to improve but thankfully i've reversed that.

All people have tried to point out mate is that it isn't always a conspiracy and sometimes it just isn't meant to be!....to basically question the integrity of the recruitment system (time and again) because of outsourcing is frankly ridiculous (sorry to be blunt).

remember mate it was you who had a pop at existing staff re announcements and customer service etc yet you have been found to be not up to the required standard twice now and multiple people on here have pointed out where you may have been going wrong.....can they all be wrong?

feedback does not have to be a written essay mate if they wrote back to me and just simply had "communication skills" in bold capitals on an A4 sized piece of paper that'd be enough for me!..........remember you can whine and whinge about the feedback or take what you have been given and do something about it......the ones that do the latter generally get the jobs.

 

[G136GREYHOUND]

Gotta say i am with johnfm here!

no one has trolled you.....i know i certainly haven't.....what you have got to understand about this place is when you post something on here, especially when you are looking for advice people will only ever give you honest advice or in some cases constructive criticism.

If you honestly want a career on the railway you will have to learn to take both!one of the questions i was asked in my interview was what do you consider your weakest point to which i said i used to take criticism to heart instead of using it to improve but thankfully i've reversed that.

All people have tried to point out mate is that it isn't always a conspiracy and sometimes it just isn't meant to be!....to basically question the integrity of the recruitment system (time and again) because of outsourcing is frankly ridiculous (sorry to be blunt).

remember mate it was you who had a pop at existing staff re announcements and customer service etc yet you have been found to be not up to the required standard twice now and multiple people on here have pointed out where you may have been going wrong.....can they all be wrong?

feedback does not have to be a written essay mate if they wrote back to me and just simply had "communication skills" in bold capitals on an A4 sized piece of paper that'd be enough for me!..........remember you can whine and whinge about the feedback or take what you have been given and do something about it......the ones that do the latter generally get the jobs.

I certainly don't feel I have "trolled" you either in all honesty. I stated from the outset, I found your posts hard to understand due to poor composition, punctuation and paragraphing.

 

[RailwayDog]

to basically question the integrity of the recruitment system (time and again) because of outsourcing is frankly ridiculous (sorry to be blunt).

Hang on a minute, he didn't question it, I did! It's actually a fact that outsourced pass rates are lower.....it's a shame that the rail industry isn't governed by FOI to demonstrate it....currently it remains a widely known "secret" by those in the industry! Having held a few senior roles in the industry at different TOC's in HR and Operations it is well known by me and various colleagues at other TOC's.

Give the guy a break, he's now in the position where he can't pursue what may well have been his dream job and hasn't been given feedback of any quality! To have to make a subject access request to get it is just madness, when someone has put that much time and effort into a process, twice!, it should be given straight away without making people jump through hoops! The rail industry is looking for candidates with great customer service skills, the same should be given to applicants.

 

[red2005]

I don think I've ever seen such a showing of sour grapes and bitternes! Last time I saw such conspiracy theories I was watching Jesse Ventura!

 

[ComUtoR]

Give the guy a break, he's now in the position where he can't pursue what may well have been his dream job and hasn't been given feedback of any quality! To have to make a subject access request to get it is just madness, when someone has put that much time and effort into a process, twice!, it should be given straight away without making people jump through hoops! The rail industry is looking for candidates with great customer service skills, the same should be given to applicants.

What will a subject access request get but more disappointment ? He failed, didn't meet the grade, wasn't good enough, couldn't cut the mustard. Am I trolling communicating that right ?

The reticence to not state clearly the company that is potentially doing something very wrong does not engender any trust and doesn't show any real belief that they are in the wrong and need to be brought to task. IF the statistics are showing a trend then it is a very serious matter.

Feel free to request the data and read in black and white the reason why you failed please come back and show us the letter too.

I must admit that I was saddened by your opening posts but it has become very much sour grapes and bitterness. You got someone to finally agree with you and that was the only post you want to accept as constructive or helpful.

Johnfm seems to have hit the nail firmly on the head and driven the point home.

You failed, you ain't getting the job. Move on. Unless you have just cause to challenge the ruling then nothing will change. Maybe in a few years time when they change the rules again and the slate gets wiped clean you may have another chance. Until then, good luck with wherever you end up.

 

[red2005]

Hang on a minute, he didn't question it, I did! It's actually a fact that outsourced pass rates are lower.....it's a shame that the rail industry isn't governed by FOI to demonstrate it....currently it remains a widely known "secret" by those in the industry! Having held a few senior roles in the industry at different TOC's in HR and Operations it is well known by me and various colleagues at other TOC's.

Give the guy a break, he's now in the position where he can't pursue what may well have been his dream job and hasn't been given feedback of any quality! To have to make a subject access request to get it is just madness, when someone has put that much time and effort into a process, twice!, it should be given straight away without making people jump through hoops! The rail industry is looking for candidates with great customer service skills, the same should be given to applicants.

It's extremely sad he can't now pursue his dreams and I feel for the guy but blaming everyone and everything apart from himself for failing is nothing short of disrespectful to anyone who's passed with the same system.

Shoulda woulda coulda.......we all entered the same system and jumped through the same hoops and I'm sure many who failed first time round passed afterwards using the same feedback. Why at the end of the day should anyone show sympathy for his predicament?? Where was mine when I failed at different stages more than once??

Welcome to a brutal system.

 

[ComUtoR]

Where was mine when I failed at different stages more than once??

Ahhh, I'm sorry fella.


Bloody trainees

 

[red2005]

Ahhh, I'm sorry fella.


Bloody trainees

Because it's you I'll let you off ha

 

[greatkingrat]

Don't forget that pass rates will depend on whether the MMI is done before or after the DMI. If it is done as the final stage, then some of the weaker candidates will already have been eliminated so you would expect a higher pass rate.

 

[ComUtoR]

Don't forget that pass rates will depend on whether the MMI is done before or after the DMI. If it is done as the final stage, then some of the weaker candidates will already have been eliminated so you would expect a higher pass rate.

What a fantastic point.

I think that logic can be extended to other stages where some have stated that there is an unfairness to be stopped and not progressed and then told of where you didn't pass.

Does the assessment always proceed in the same order ? Are all candidates using this outsourced company having their MMI before or after DMI ? are TOC based assessments MMI before DMI ? It would be a waste of the DM's time if they were potential failures.

Good point indeed.

 

[RailwayDog]

What a fantastic point.

I think that logic can be extended to other stages where some have stated that there is an unfairness to be stopped and not progressed and then told of where you didn't pass.

Does the assessment always proceed in the same order ? Are all candidates using this outsourced company having their MMI before or after DMI ? are TOC based assessments MMI before DMI ? It would be a waste of the DM's time if they were potential failures.

Good point indeed.

The poster in question here undertook the MMI last, after the DM interview.....as I said in an earlier post I find it absolutely astonishing that someone would fail an MMI twice due to communication after a DM interview, before fair enough but not after!

As for order all companies will choose their own order, as long as appointed candidates at some point have undertaken all the mandatory elements it's up to the company. FGW and Southern do all of their testing upfront and both have a significantly lower failure rate than TOC's who follow the same order but outsource.....

 

[E&W Lucas]

The poster in question here undertook the MMI last, after the DM interview.....as I said in an earlier post I find it absolutely astonishing that someone would fail an MMI twice due to communication after a DM interview, before fair enough but not after!

As for order all companies will choose their own order, as long as appointed candidates at some point have undertaken all the mandatory elements it's up to the company. FGW and Southern do all of their testing upfront and both have a significantly lower failure rate than TOC's who follow the same order but outsource.....

You're ignoring many other variables, that will influence success rates. Foremost, will be the pre selection criteria applied by the companies, which will vary, and will differ in their effectiveness. If a management interview is conducted prior to the psychometric process, that will also vary in its effectivenss in identifying suitable candidates. Involvement of HR and non- driving management, can lead to some "interesting" decisions, which may not work out happily later on in the training process.

Of greeter relevance, would be to compare the records of the candidates at the end of their two year post qualification period. Remember, the process isn't about passing as many applicants as possible, it's about identifying those with the innate ability to become good drivers.

 

[JamesTT]

At the risk of sounding like I am rambling on in one post I would like to make a few points.

First and foremost I do not have a problem with constructive criticism, infact I welcome it. What I do have an issue with is the attitude of how dare you think you could join the ranks of us railway gods.

It appears apart from one responder no one acknowledges me getting through the other parts of the application procedure.

I mentioned seeing the good score on my SJE because common sense would suggest that was a positive thing and be a mark in my favour.

Comments have been made about lack of trainability. I passed the TRP1 & TRP2 and a DFFT. Using a few extra adjectives and giving a bit more detail doesn't make one untrainable.

Actually yes I suppose there is an element of bitterness. When you see those drivers that are arrogant, see disruption as means of getting out of doing work. Don't make annouuncements not because it isn't safe to do so, but because they don't want to, and they think it is beneath them.

Asking for the information via DPA request would probably be the most comprehensive feedback I could get, and possible assist in applying for other roles.

Regards saying I was being trolled ok that was an over reaction. In my defense in my book to accuse someone of rambling on is to accuse them of repeating themselves. Also the wink emoji just wound me up in the context of the message.

I don't have a choice but to accept I don't have any more attempts. I can still kick myself that I ticked all boxes in the application procedure except one in the MMI.

I don't think there was a conspiracy against me or anyone else. I think feeing aggrieved about the consistency of feedback across TOCs and private assessment centres is justified.

 

[MichaelAMW]

At the risk of sounding like I am rambling on in one post I would like to make a few points.

First and foremost I do not have a problem with constructive criticism, infact I welcome it. What I do have an issue with is the attitude of how dare you think you could join the ranks of us railway gods.

It appears apart from one responder no one acknowledges me getting through the other parts of the application procedure.

I mentioned seeing the good score on my SJE because common sense would suggest that was a positive thing and be a mark in my favour.

Comments have been made about lack of trainability. I passed the TRP1 & TRP2 and a DFFT. Using a few extra adjectives and giving a bit more detail doesn't make one untrainable.

Actually yes I suppose there is an element of bitterness. When you see those drivers that are arrogant, see disruption as means of getting out of doing work. Don't make annouuncements not because it isn't safe to do so, but because they don't want to, and they think it is beneath them.

Asking for the information via DPA request would probably be the most comprehensive feedback I could get, and possible assist in applying for other roles.

Regards saying I was being trolled ok that was an over reaction. In my defense in my book to accuse someone of rambling on is to accuse them of repeating themselves. Also the wink emoji just wound me up in the context of the message.

I don't have a choice but to accept I don't have any more attempts. I can still kick myself that I ticked all boxes in the application procedure except one in the MMI.

I don't think there was a conspiracy against me or anyone else. I think feeing aggrieved about the consistency of feedback across TOCs and private assessment centres is justified.

Nobody is saying you're not a good or even very good candidate but, as I said earlier in the thread, you have to be the best candidate, as indicated by the selection process. With such a huge number of applicants the TOCs have the luxury of not having to take on anything but the top few, even if in a different situation, i.e. far fewer applicants, they would take on others, including you. There were n hoops to jump through and you got through (n - 1).

Unfortunately, the selection process isn't perfect and almost certainly doesn't actually select the best candidates from the applicants, although given it has to be manageable and affordable it probably does a pretty good job. As for your negative remarks about some drivers I would suggest two things: (i) many of them have been on the railway for many years so didn't go through the present selection process and a goodly number would probably fail it miserably if they had to take it now, but following *their* selection process they have subsequently proved themselves by doing the job itself to (at least) an adequate standard; (ii) I suspect many of us on this forum, that is the vast majority who are not drivers and even some who are, would to some extent agree with you that there is a cockiness among a minority of drivers, even if they do often provide some excellent insight, but unfortunately - and I think this is what is really at the bottom of your gripes - it is extremely difficult to carry out a selection process that weeds out people who might subsequently prove to be somewhat lazy or uncooperative or who only have a motivation for the money and not for job itself or for the fact that it is customer service. Indeed, I suspect that the "customer service" angle is a major part of the company interview these days whereas drivers from BR days were probably selected without much of a thought for this, if they were even interviewed at all - I did a short spell on the railway myself some years ago and then it was all about seniority and dead men's shoes.

 

[red2005]

At the risk of sounding like I am rambling on in one post I would like to make a few points.

First and foremost I do not have a problem with constructive criticism, infact I welcome it. What I do have an issue with is the attitude of how dare you think you could join the ranks of us railway gods.

It appears apart from one responder no one acknowledges me getting through the other parts of the application procedure.

I mentioned seeing the good score on my SJE because common sense would suggest that was a positive thing and be a mark in my favour.

Comments have been made about lack of trainability. I passed the TRP1 & TRP2 and a DFFT. Using a few extra adjectives and giving a bit more detail doesn't make one untrainable.

Actually yes I suppose there is an element of bitterness. When you see those drivers that are arrogant, see disruption as means of getting out of doing work. Don't make annouuncements not because it isn't safe to do so, but because they don't want to, and they think it is beneath them.

Asking for the information via DPA request would probably be the most comprehensive feedback I could get, and possible assist in applying for other roles.

Regards saying I was being trolled ok that was an over reaction. In my defense in my book to accuse someone of rambling on is to accuse them of repeating themselves. Also the wink emoji just wound me up in the context of the message.

I don't have a choice but to accept I don't have any more attempts. I can still kick myself that I ticked all boxes in the application procedure except one in the MMI.

I don't think there was a conspiracy against me or anyone else. I think feeing aggrieved about the consistency of feedback across TOCs and private assessment centres is justified.

The railway always welcome's newcomers and very few have the "railway god's" attitude, in fact i have not seen one reply on this post where anyone has remotely come across that way. All people have done is try to give you different angles as to why you have not made it through.

Not many have acknowledged the fact you have passed the other elements of the assessments simply because the post is related to the MMI and communication aspect of your application, In fact looking back through the thread you yourself have hardly mentioned the parts that you have passed so why would others acknowledge it if you haven't?

With all due respect though what right do you have to be bitter towards anyone in their current role no matter how they perform? bottom line is you have only seen part of what is in their locker,for all you know they are exemplary in all other aspects of the job and regardless of what you may believe there's no actual way of knowing that you can do any better even if you think you can.

Trust me i have seen very few people who have been in a customer facing role for more than a year who still walk around whistling zippedeedoodah, Until you have done the role you really should keep the bitterness you speak of under lock and key. I have seen many a chirpy guard for example pretty much reduced to breaking point because of what the role can do to an individual at times.

It's really top notch that you passed on the other aspects of the recruitment process it really is as the bits you have passed are arguably the most difficult (but others may say they are the easy bits, not me personally though) but the problem is they don't do an average in terms of scores over the whole day, you have to pass everything. It is hard to take i know as i failed many times (at different stages than yourself) but you have to remember that there are people that have passed EVERYTHING and still not got driving jobs it's certainly nothing personal.

The feedback is what it is! you just have to deal with the fact that every company is different this isn't BR anymore, for all you know some companies wouldn't give you any feedback at all therefore you should be grateful for what you did receive. The fact you passed everything else yet they have said the problem is communication in the MMI narrows it down a hell of a lot for me as to where you would need to improve so i don't really understand what else you wan't them to tell you without basically doing the work for you.

Best of luck with whatever you decide to do! driving isn't the only decent role on the railway there are stacks of them!

Red.

 

[IKB]

James, I can understand your frustration.

Having failed the assessments myself the first time around I wasn't too enamoured with the selection process. That is a natural human reaction when faced with failure. Sometimes we blame ourselves (rightly), sometimes we may have a legitimate gripe about about how things were conducted. After my first attempt I felt the instructions for one of the tests could have been communicated better. Or was it my fault for not double checking? There wasn't anything I could do about it and so I took it on the chin. Thankfully I was fortunate enough to have a second attempt with a different company and passed. That doesn't mean I think the selection process is infallible and I do think an element of luck is involved to a slight degree.

Since you have passed two DMI interviews, not to mention all the other tests, this suggests that you have some of the qualities the company is looking for.

The paper and computer tests are either pass or fail and there is little (if any) room for interpretation on behalf of those marking the answers.

The MMI test is a different kettle of fish and is perhaps the most subjective test out of them all. How the interviewer interprets your answers or the degree of help they give you will depend on who is conducting the interview that day. I remember reading someone’s feedback on a previous thread who said they didn't pass because they didn't say one particular word. Perhaps on a different day that guy might have remembered the key word and have passed. We all have mental blocks from time to time, that doesn't mean he wasn't suitable for the role, he was just unlucky.

Someone above alluded to the higher failure rates with external companies than with the in-house tests for a variety of reasons. I cannot say if that is true or not but, if it is, that would be another variable out of your control. If you had had your test with another company or interviewer you might have passed. Unfortunately you will never know.

However, that aside, given you have failed the MMI twice (with communication cited) suggests that something is amiss with how you are conveying your answers. Perhaps you didn't stick to the STAR method of delivery as perhaps as well as you could have. Who knows.

I'm afraid I don't buy into some of the cutting responses above that seem to paint everything as black and white. Since your only feedback has been the word "communication" it would be inappropriate to start commenting on your suitability for the role. Nobody here knows anything about you or how you actually performed. After all, the only people in the interview room were you and the interviewer!

Unfortunately as far as 'officialdom' goes, you didn't meet the standard required.

I know what a downer you are probably on. Since your two 'goes' are over, for your own mental sanity it is probably best to forget about it and move onto looking for other roles. Requesting further feedback (IMO) will just prolong your misery and probably not enlighten you any further.

 

[G136GREYHOUND]

At the risk of sounding like I am rambling on in one post I would like to make a few points.

First and foremost I do not have a problem with constructive criticism, infact I welcome it. What I do have an issue with is the attitude of how dare you think you could join the ranks of us railway gods.

It appears apart from one responder no one acknowledges me getting through the other parts of the application procedure.

I mentioned seeing the good score on my SJE because common sense would suggest that was a positive thing and be a mark in my favour.

Comments have been made about lack of trainability. I passed the TRP1 & TRP2 and a DFFT. Using a few extra adjectives and giving a bit more detail doesn't make one untrainable.

Actually yes I suppose there is an element of bitterness. When you see those drivers that are arrogant, see disruption as means of getting out of doing work. Don't make annouuncements not because it isn't safe to do so, but because they don't want to, and they think it is beneath them.

Asking for the information via DPA request would probably be the most comprehensive feedback I could get, and possible assist in applying for other roles.

Regards saying I was being trolled ok that was an over reaction. In my defense in my book to accuse someone of rambling on is to accuse them of repeating themselves. Also the wink emoji just wound me up in the context of the message.

I don't have a choice but to accept I don't have any more attempts. I can still kick myself that I ticked all boxes in the application procedure except one in the MMI.

I don't think there was a conspiracy against me or anyone else. I think feeing aggrieved about the consistency of feedback across TOCs and private assessment centres is justified.

James,

try 20 years on the railway, try 6 years of DOO driving out of London and put yourself in the position of why drivers may come across as a little " public serviced " out. They may still be good railwaymen, but some form of self defense mechanism is inevitable and essential for survival and sanity. It's not arrogance it's mere burn out

In my experience, new people are welcomed these days, provided, as in every facet of life, they make an effort themselves.

In the "old" days, if you hadn't been on with Stephenson, no one would talk to you for the first 5 years

 

[ComUtoR]

Sometimes we blame ourselves (rightly), sometimes we may have a legitimate gripe about about how things were conducted. After my first attempt I felt the instructions for one of the tests could have been communicated better.

That is how I almost failed. Some of the instructions were not clear (in my mind) but I spoke to the assessor and was summarily told that everyone is getting the same instruction and she couldn't give out any specifics. On the coloured dots test I couldn't get comfortable and again spoke with the assessor. She also informed me that everyone was in the same position.

I went in blind to my MMI and had a couple of answers outright rejected so I had to think on my feet and the interviewer offered no help whatsoever.

As to passing part of the test and failing on a single section. Its not really that significant. You MUST pass ALL of the tests.

Is the test fallible. Oh certainly but its the only test in town.