No interviews or any contact

Post a reply

Smilies
:D :) ;) :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen: :geek: :ugeek:
BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON
Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: No interviews or any contact

Re: No interviews or any contact

by Guest » Fri Mar 07, 2025 1:16 pm

Guest wrote: ↑
Fri Mar 07, 2025 12:42 pm
Guest wrote: ↑
Fri Mar 07, 2025 11:34 am
Guest wrote: ↑
Fri Mar 07, 2025 10:37 am
 I am unsure if this should be read as: "Top 5 SFs don't need to interview candidates. Other SFs need to interview primaries and secondaries only" or if it should be read "Top 5 SFs need to interview only if selected as primaries and secondaries. Other SFs need to interview all."
I see. I was actually the one that wrote that. Your second interpretation is more correct. To be even more clear: “Top 5 SFs need to interview all. Other SFs need to interview all."

I mentioned primaries and secondaries to highlight the fact that interviews must happen if the SF is picking the applicant, even if the SF isn’t planning on picking the applicant as their top choice.

If that is the case, the bit about "Facilities don’t have to interview applicants that put them in their top 5" is meaningless since it is no different than than facilities which are not put in the top 5. Why include it?
Because I was trying to reply to the commenter who said,“They also said in the zoom call that locations have to interview all candidates that put them on their priority list this year. You should eventually hear back from some of the ones if you selected locations.”

Re: No interviews or any contact

by Guest » Fri Mar 07, 2025 12:42 pm

Guest wrote: ↑
Fri Mar 07, 2025 11:34 am
Guest wrote: ↑
Fri Mar 07, 2025 10:37 am
 I am unsure if this should be read as: "Top 5 SFs don't need to interview candidates. Other SFs need to interview primaries and secondaries only" or if it should be read "Top 5 SFs need to interview only if selected as primaries and secondaries. Other SFs need to interview all."
I see. I was actually the one that wrote that. Your second interpretation is more correct. To be even more clear: “Top 5 SFs need to interview all. Other SFs need to interview all."

I mentioned primaries and secondaries to highlight the fact that interviews must happen if the SF is picking the applicant, even if the SF isn’t planning on picking the applicant as their top choice.

If that is the case, the bit about "Facilities don’t have to interview applicants that put them in their top 5" is meaningless since it is no different than than facilities which are not put in the top 5. Why include it?

Re: No interviews or any contact

by Guest » Fri Mar 07, 2025 11:34 am

Guest wrote: ↑
Fri Mar 07, 2025 10:37 am
 I am unsure if this should be read as: "Top 5 SFs don't need to interview candidates. Other SFs need to interview primaries and secondaries only" or if it should be read "Top 5 SFs need to interview only if selected as primaries and secondaries. Other SFs need to interview all."
I see. I was actually the one that wrote that. Your second interpretation is more correct. To be even more clear: “Top 5 SFs need to interview all. Other SFs need to interview all."

I mentioned primaries and secondaries to highlight the fact that interviews must happen if the SF is picking the applicant, even if the SF isn’t planning on picking the applicant as their top choice.

Re: No interviews or any contact

by Guest » Fri Mar 07, 2025 10:37 am

Guest wrote: ↑
Thu Mar 06, 2025 9:46 pm
Guest wrote: ↑
Thu Mar 06, 2025 5:47 pm
 I thought if you put them in your top 5 an interview was not required. Is that only if you are not in the top two short lists?
Where did you hear that? That’s not how I understand it — I think a facility must interview all their selections, whether or not you put them in your top five.
I read it in "Should I be worried v.2"
Guest wrote: ↑
Sat Feb 08, 2025 10:24 am
 Facilities don’t have to interview applicants that put them in their top 5. However, facilities must interview applicants that they are selecting as primaries or secondaries.
I am unsure if this should be read as: "Top 5 SFs don't need to interview candidates. Other SFs need to interview primaries and secondaries only" or if it should be read "Top 5 SFs need to interview only if selected as primaries and secondaries. Other SFs need to interview all."

This is an unofficial source so I don't put too much stock in it, but from what I understand, in past years, communication from official sources has given mixed messages to people so there has been some confusion. Who knows?

OP should probably start looking for summer internships elsewhere but if they get a SMART award packet in April just inform the hiring team that they suddenly have a government obligation and can not take the internship any longer. It is much longer than 2 weeks notice and they may not hear for certain if they got another internship by April any ways.

Re: No interviews or any contact

by Guest » Thu Mar 06, 2025 9:46 pm

Guest wrote: ↑
Thu Mar 06, 2025 5:47 pm
 I thought if you put them in your top 5 an interview was not required. Is that only if you are not in the top two short lists?
Where did you hear that? That’s not how I understand it — I think a facility must interview all their selections, whether or not you put them in your top five.

Re: No interviews or any contact

by Guest » Thu Mar 06, 2025 5:47 pm

Guest wrote: ↑
Thu Mar 06, 2025 5:19 pm
 This is the first year that SMART is requiring all facilities to interview their picks for the scholarship. With this in mind, along with today being the deadline for facilities to submit their choices, applicants that have had no contact with a facility will likely not be receiving the scholarship.
I thought if you put them in your top 5 an interview was not required. Is that only if you are not in the top two short lists?
FinFitz wrote: ↑
Thu Mar 06, 2025 4:54 pm
 I have not received any emails from a sponsoring facility. No response to the message I had in my application, no emails about an interview, nothing. I’ve only received emails from SMART themselves, the ones everyone gets. I know some people never hear anything and still get an award, but let’s be real here, I’m assuming that’s pretty uncommon. Does this basically mean I’m out of the race? I’m trying to decide what to do this summer for work, and having a better idea of my financial situation is kinda important. If I don’t get smart, I’ll probably need to go for a much higher paying job and work all summer, so it’d be nice to know sooner rather than later.
Did you get the "Save the date email?" At least one person didn't but it might have just ended up in spam.

I also read in prior years people got rejection emails as early as February informing them that they were not selected or that they were not currently selected but might hear back later. Does not mean they are doing it the same this year. I wonder if anyone has gotten a similar email this year?

Re: No interviews or any contact

by Guest » Thu Mar 06, 2025 5:19 pm

This is the first year that SMART is requiring all facilities to interview their picks for the scholarship. With this in mind, along with today being the deadline for facilities to submit their choices, applicants that have had no contact with a facility will likely not be receiving the scholarship.

No interviews or any contact

by FinFitz » Thu Mar 06, 2025 4:54 pm

I have not received any emails from a sponsoring facility. No response to the message I had in my application, no emails about an interview, nothing. I’ve only received emails from SMART themselves, the ones everyone gets. I know some people never hear anything and still get an award, but let’s be real here, I’m assuming that’s pretty uncommon. Does this basically mean I’m out of the race? I’m trying to decide what to do this summer for work, and having a better idea of my financial situation is kinda important. If I don’t get smart, I’ll probably need to go for a much higher paying job and work all summer, so it’d be nice to know sooner rather than later.

Top