Indeed. The vast majority of feedback is either 'something to say' or 'relevant only to that school/context/situation at that time'. I only took feedback once and interestingly, it was the first time I didn't get appointed (my first deputy head interview. Having got down to the last two candidates and thus reached the 'final panel' after two days of activities, the LA adviser sat down with me immediately afterwards to offer this feedback. I recall the phrase 'You were very polished - perhaps too polished' and asked for clarification, whereupon he blustered a bit and then said 'You were too sure of yourself'. Right! The best bit, however, was when I asked him why the question put to me at the end of my interview was entirely different to that put to the successful candidate (you must realise that the school made a massive deal of equal opps and stated 'All candidates will be asked the same questions.' I was asked a question about the school's exam data (this was 1992, when such data was not in the public domain), which I had not been given; she was asked 'What makes you laugh?' I leave colleagues to ponder why we were asked different questions, more specifically, why I was asked a question by the head that I couldn't possibly have answered. I offer this just to show that the likes of Theo and me have also been done like kippers in interviews during our careers.