Let’s start with my basics: the 2010 National Examination came to shore and worked for more than 10 years in a ministry.
I am often asked in my own personal capacity: how can I be interviewed through a civil servant?
Before answering that question, let me give you an example:
The family member introduced you to a match-making partner, in all respects, and you started to figure out what you could do before you went to the appointment.
You think you’re normal and dumb.
So, a few days before the appointment, you started looking for someone to give you an emergency training and try to raise your tongue.
You’ve finally learned a few tricks, and you’ve opened your mouth at a blind date, and it seems very funny, but the girl has given you a definition: unfaithful, grumpy.
The blind date blew.
What’s the problem?
You don’t understand what a girl really needs, and you think it’s a good thing to talk, and you’ll reap her heart.
Another problem is that your own strengths, which may be real, sincere, home-care, your own business, etc., are not shown, but rather your own weakness — to do so.
The same applies to interviews with civil servants.
First we have to figure out what the examiner wants to hear and what you want to see.
In fact, the outline for the interview of civil servants is quite clear and, to put it simply, is the following.
One is your good point of view.
Like us talking about mountains, on the question of whether you can come up with an eye for friends, with depth, with thought, is a direct judgment of your level.
For example, one of the interview questions: “App, now a short video like tremors, is hot, has a very rich little video, but also has some little negative video. What do you think about that?”
View one: “App, a short video like tremor, misleading youth values, should be banned. I’m sorry.
Point two: “The emergence of short videos, such as tremors, App, and of these small videos of various types and styles in App reflect the diversity of the needs of the population for cultural products, which should be recognized. I’m sorry.
So, which one is deeper and has thought? There is no doubt that this is point two.
For example, this interview, “The farmers are not willing to grow the new fruit trees that the government has promoted, what do you think is a good idea? I’m sorry.
View one: “Increased publicity, posters on village signboards to show villagers the advantages of new fruit trees. I’m sorry.
View Two: “A group of villagers organized a tour of the new fruit tree plantation in Daedo orchard, so that the farmer would tell the villagers in his own right that the new fruit tree was very productive, capable of preventing pests, low planting costs and high returns. Convince villagers with concrete examples. I’m sorry.
Which way? There is no doubt that the approach of the second perspective will be better suited to the psychological activities of the villagers and will be more effective.
So if we can come up with a good point about a comprehensive analysis of the subject, whether we can capture the key, whether we can think in depth, and whether the answer we give to the subject of the response is realistic or not, which is the most direct impression for the examiner.
Interviews with civil servants, on the same day, were almost the same, with the same question being answered by dozens of examiners in one day.
So, basically, there’s something that can be figured out, and out of dozens of candidates, someone always answers.
In short, it is difficult for you to answer a different, new, deeper point of view that no one else has thought of. But if you did, you’d be impressed.
Why, then, do we all share the view that there are high points and low points?
The difference lies in the argument.
With chestnuts from the top farmers who are reluctant to grow new fruit trees, there is a view that “the farmers are encouraged to grow fruit trees in various ways.” I’m sorry.
Comment I:
Farmers were encouraged to plant new fruit trees, which were reported to be very productive and profitable, and to obtain subsidies for planting and incentives for the first-growing farmers.
Comment II:
Various measures have been taken to encourage farmers to plant new fruit trees. More publicity could be done, for example, by inviting farmers to visit the orchards of the new fruit tree grower, who would like to tell you more about the advantages of new fruit tree production, pest prevention, input costs, taste and benefits than old fruit trees, and about the advantages of new fruit tree. In addition, a new fruit-planting incentive fund could be set up to provide appropriate cash or in-kind incentives to the first farmers who responded to the Government ‘ s call to grow new fruit-trees, such as the exemption of their seedling costs and reimbursement of their costs associated with the purchase of fertilizers and pesticides, in order to stimulate farmers to grow new fruit-trees.
Both statements, the main elements of which are the same, are propaganda and economic incentives, but which one will get high marks? No doubt the second.
Because the second discussion is richer, more concrete and more lively, it concretizes the response.
More importantly, the second is very logical. First, the idea was to “take a variety of measures to motivate farmers to grow new fruit trees” and then to divide it into “sensitization efforts” and “appropriate cash or in kind awards” and to use the words “may” and “other” as a transposition of hierarchy.
The logic is clear, the hierarchy is clear and it sounds natural.
The same is true of the opinio juris, all of which are the same, but some score high, others low, and the difference lies in the adequacy and logic of the argument.
The interview is actually a speech in the mouth, and it’s the same thing.
That’s what we’re talking about.
But you can’t just say something. You have to say it in your mouth.
So “expression” becomes a very important form of presentation.
A lot of people are dumb, unspoken and stammer during interviews.
But most of the time, however, it is not that this person usually talks and stammers, and many people talk so softly when they talk to their friends, but they stammer at the interview.
The reason for this is that, during our interviews, we always felt that we had to speak in official terms, as in documents and speeches by our leaders, in a number of high-profile terms and in many official terms.
When we express our views in a language that we are not familiar with, we are sure to stammer.
How can a lot of training institutions help solve this problem? It’s all the gold sentences, all the big sentences and words, and then it’s almost as interesting as this one, no matter what, it starts back.
You don’t have to think about anything. You don’t have to think about it.
So now, in order to avoid the direct back-up of the candidates for many of the courses, many interviews have become more sophisticated and innovative, making it impossible for you to put them directly and to endorse them directly.
For example, this year’s IRS interview:
The provincial tax authorities have been assigned to the municipal tax authorities to carry out a pilot project to optimize the business environment. You’re Li, a staff member of the Municipal Revenue Service, and you’re in a tight time and task. With the following five working measures, which two solutions would you choose to complete your work? (1) Teams are formed with additional staff; (2) the advice of the higher authority is asked; (3) the capacity is limited and the leadership is advised to change others to take responsibility for this work; (4) the work is thoroughly reviewed in advance; (5) the relevant work experience in other regions is studied. Please indicate the reasons for this choice.
And what’s common is this:
The provincial tax authorities have been assigned to the municipal tax authorities to carry out a pilot project to optimize the business environment. How would you organize this pilot now that you’re running out of time and work?
As a result of this regular and common approach, you can easily set the course, starting with “preparation” of the pilot organization “summary report” .
But they asked you to choose two measures, and they asked you to explain why you chose them, and how did you do it?
It is therefore not possible to rely on the backtracking and the golden phrases to solve the problem of speaking out.
How, then, can we solve the problem of stammering and not fluent without a good word?
The first is to refrain from imposing language systems that are false, unrealistic and beyond their control.
A grad student talks like a monkey with a big knife, only funny; and like a three-year-old, swinging a big hammer of 100 pounds.
But you can’t just talk like you always do.
Instead, it should be written as much as possible, but not out of control, as we normally do when the company meets to speak, more written than usual.
In short, it is not for the sake of the words that will prevail, to lose or to ignore the real thoughts of one ‘ s own heart, otherwise it is for the sake of words.
If you can’t even present your thoughts and opinions to the examiner, what’s the point?
Moreover, the examiners themselves hate the scrambling of false space with no specific content, and prefer the stylist and the actual expression. This is because they have heard enough, seen all kinds of contentless, false things, and they are really tired of it.
The second is not to overemphasize the so-called non-combination and flow of water.
A smooth-talking, non-combination can certainly give the examiner a more direct impression, but it is based on the premise that what you say, you have to be content, you have to have a good point of view, you have to have a good argument and you have to be logical.
If, however, the content is so smooth that you can get a high score without twitching, then you can simply accept the students who specialize in broadcasting.
In this sense, many leaders speak in front of the television, in front of the camera, word by word, word by word, even if they read the script slowly, and their civil servants interview must have low marks.
So as long as our twitching and stalling do not affect the normal expression of our views, nor does it prevent the examiner from reading our views.
In fact, the good way to express it, instead of talking about it at all, does not stop at all, but rather gives people the feeling of being unconscious. Rather, there is a rhythm, and it is the best way to express it, with a proper pause between the focus and the sentence.
For example, news feed, for example, some leaders speak in public speeches with a sense of rhythm, conscious pause and emphasis.
Thirdly, it is often written to train its own reasoning and hierarchy.
Most of the problems with many interviews are the lack of reasoning and hierarchy. Zhang San said it later, I thought of Li Si Si, he didn’t finish, and I started talking about Wang Hu again. Stop talking about the examiner and don’t even know what you’re talking about, what to say and where to go.
Therefore, a pen is needed to develop and exercise the logic and hierarchy of thinking.
Here is another example.
In order to optimize the business environment, and in view of the time constraints and the tasks involved (caption of the topic, as set out below), I will select the following two measures (i.e. point of view).
The first is an advance study with a comprehensive picture of the work (centre thinking, response).
The main consideration (in retrospect) is that it is because of the time constraints and the heavy tasks, and only if there is a comprehensive picture of the priorities, the difficulties and the limited human and material resources and the time available to address them (this part sets out why this is being done and what it means to achieve it).
For example (for example, by specifying) as a tax department, it is essential to establish a business-efficacy environment in which tax-paying enterprises can be easily taxed and to reduce disruptions and impediments to tax-paying enterprises. But what problems are faced with the taxation of specific enterprises, and what unnecessary disruptions are caused to enterprises by tax authorities in their daily work, and even hinders their productive development. These are the priorities of our work, and in-depth and comprehensive research is required to understand them. (from positive arguments about the need for research)
Otherwise, without knowledge of the specific situation, the pilot is a fly without head, with nowhere to go, or without a key contradiction, a lack of clarity, a waste of resources and time. ♪ From the opposite side, without research, you can’t get the point ♪
It is only after a long period of written training that we will be able to establish this close reasoning logic and hierarchy.
The point of writing is not only to help us to fill in the poor logic of talking in interviews, but also to help us in preparing for the examination, and in the future, in the work of civil servants, to write well, to be a master of materials, a backbone of business.
Of course, even if civil servants are inappropriate, it is the most basic ability to write a report in a company, to write a paper, to be an editor, and to write something.
Four is more talk.
It’s not exactly the same. How to use writing thinking in the mouth requires more training.
When we talk, when we talk to friends, when we discuss work in the company, we better pay attention to the logic and hierarchy of expression.
On one occasion, I spoke to several people outside the system who thought that my expression was logical, hierarchical, sufficiency of argument, and that it was easy, easy and easy to listen to me.
In fact, I didn’t have that good expression skills a year or two ago, but for almost a year or two I’ve been writing articles, and I’ve been giving interviews to civil servants, and I’ve been working on it.
It was therefore important to find opportunities to train themselves in their ability to express themselves. In school, for example, doing a course is, in fact, an in-depth expression exercise that you’re going to talk to your class. And, for example, when you discuss a project with everyone in the company, and when you express your views, you think of it as an interview, with a certain idea of what you’re talking about, and then you say it logically, it’s like an exercise. It’s much better than a brainless mouth.
In addition, talking to friends, expressing opinions on things and questions, and suggesting that it is an interview in the heart, conceived in the manner of the argument of ” presentation of the point-of-fact ” , and then starting to speak, is equivalent to an interview exercise. This practice is useful not only for small interviews of civil servants, but also for their ability to express themselves, their logical abilities and their future work.
In conclusion, let us conclude by saying: how can the interview be conducted through the civil service?
The answer is that civil servants are not the masters of the examination, and that the requirements for the smooth flow of speech are not the first, and should not be too aggressive.
In addition, what does the examiner care most about? It is the content of your answer, the adequacy of your argument, the logic and the hierarchy of your expression.
It’s hard for us to get a full score on all aspects of the interview, and you can’t be the best in Mandarin and the best in the world.
The key to high scores is the most important part, the answer to the questions and the logical level, which we need to get high or even full; and those minor aspects, such as smooth talk, tact, dress, we try not to lose points or lose points.
It’s not easy to get in, and I wish you all a chance to interview the units that get high points and get to shore. Record number: YX11vvWgEY
I don’t know.
Keep your eyes on the road.
