|
In lugnet.general, Ross Crawford wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > I do think in this case it's an interesting point, though. To widen it out a
> > bit, it certainly does show that LEGO do not always evaluate candidates for
> > things quite the way we expect they would.
> Well unfortunately there was no "What are your current personal commitments"
> question on the application, so LEGO had no way to evaluate that information.
> Surely it makes more sense, and is much easier for the applicant to evaluate it,
> and make the decision to apply (or not) accordingly?
I could easily be misremembering the application, it was a while ago, but I do
seem to recall some questions about the time that would be spent doing various
things.
|
|
|
In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Ross Crawford wrote:
> > In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> > > I do think in this case it's an interesting point, though. To widen it out a
> > > bit, it certainly does show that LEGO do not always evaluate candidates for
> > > things quite the way we expect they would.
>
> > Well unfortunately there was no "What are your current personal commitments"
> > question on the application, so LEGO had no way to evaluate that information.
> > Surely it makes more sense, and is much easier for the applicant to evaluate it,
> > and make the decision to apply (or not) accordingly?
>
> I could easily be misremembering the application, it was a while ago, but I do
> seem to recall some questions about the time that would be spent doing various
> things.
Hmmm, I don't. But hey, memory can play tricks sometimes.
ROSCO
|
|
|