Not the job for you, 27 minutes after the interview ends!

[Tiamet]

I recently had a job interview where I thought they may well be looking only at an internal candidate (they had temporary and permanent versions of the same job - I thought they might well be looking to give the permanent job to someone who already had a temporary contract).

It's not a nice feeling to think you might be wasting your time like this, particularly as I ended up having to take a day off work and pay for travel.

In the event, they weren't doing this but I would have been upset if they had contacted me before I got off the train on the way home to say no.  They could at least give the impression of considering each candidate, particularly as I assume they should only be interviewing if the paper qualifications are there.

[EllenS]

I have kind of a different take on this, as a former actor I got rejected multiple times a day for jobs.  To me, the quicker the "no", the less personal it is.  In other words, if they know that quickly, then it is probably based on something I AM/HAVE and not about something I DID.  I am who I am, I have the qualifications I have.  I can get more qualifications over time, but a fast rejection is not about you screwing up.  It is about them wanting something different. 

Another possbility is that they had already offered the job to someone else, and in that 27 minutes the other person said "yes".  You may in fact have wowed them, but they were just interviewing extra people for backup in case the first offeree said "no". 

Good luck with the search.

[Twik]

My worst interview experience was for a job that everyone kind expected I would get - it was at the university I studied at, doing things I'd already been doing as a grad student.

In the middle of the interview, one prof mentioned he'd just gotten a resume from someone else. They read it, while I was sitting there, and decided to hire that person on the spot.

This was in the late 80's, when jobs were as rare as gold nuggets, and this was not a good day for me.   

[Yarnspinner]

Heck, OP, I once went on a job interview in the days of snail only mail.  I got back from the interview (an hour's drive) and found that I already had my rejection letter sent two days before.  Apparently they already knew who they were hiring from within, but needed to interview from the outside for appearance's sake.....too bad they didn't think to hold off on sending out the rejection slips for appearance sake as well.

[veronaz]

Heck, OP, I once went on a job interview in the days of snail only mail.  I got back from the interview (an hour's drive) and found that I already had my rejection letter sent two days before.  Apparently they already knew who they were hiring from within, but needed to interview from the outside for appearance's sake.....too bad they didn't think to hold off on sending out the rejection slips for appearance sake as well.

That really bites.

You should have messed with them a little………sent a copy of the postmarked rejection letter, reminded them of the date of your interview, then asked for reimbursement of your gas expense and your time.

They probably would have ignored you, but it would make them think about their tactics.

[gramma dishes]

...   In the middle of the interview, one prof mentioned he'd just gotten a resume from someone else. They read it, while I was sitting there, and decided to hire that person on the spot.   ...

Wow. 

The good news is would you really want to work for an employer that would be so incredibly and unbelievably lacking in tact and diplomacy?

[lilfox]

Yarnspinner, wouldn't they have been up a creek if you'd gotten the letter in enough time to cancel your interview?  Then they wouldn't have met their interview quota!   

I once got a second rejection letter from a company a year after I had applied there (and been rejected at the time).  I definitely hadn't applied a second time, but somehow my original application was still in their system as "undesirable."

Even with good news, it makes a lot more sense to keep any interviewing/hiring decisions private until a formal offer is made, especially if there's no time pressure to fill the role.  Certainly not during or immediately after the interview!

[Raintree]

All this stuff about interviewing for "appearance" to satisfy HR really blows my mind. How dare they waste people's time like that?

I was kind of irritated one time not to hear anything at all. I know this is the norm in some types of applications, in which you may be one of hundreds of applicants. But I was applying for something quite specialized in a very small office (think 5 people, no HR) and I can't imagine there would have been more than about 10 people interviewed. I kind of had a sense it was all over (something about her tone/body language) when she said, "OK, I have a few more people to interview next week and I will let you know." Fine, I sent my follow-up thank-you email and expressed my interest, to which she replied that she would "not know for at least a week." I wasn't really holding out much hope by then, but then she didn't even let me know at all. I thought that was rather rude of her; it's one thing when it's a large organization that has stated in advance that only selected candidates will be contacted, but a tiny office run by one woman, with only a few interviewees? Rude, I thought.