TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Re: How To Choose A Good TW Was Re: Giving a surprise test to interviewees?
Subject:Re: How To Choose A Good TW Was Re: Giving a surprise test to interviewees? From:eric -dot- dunn -at- ca -dot- transport -dot- bombardier -dot- com To:"TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com> Date:Mon, 21 Mar 2005 13:32:50 -0500
David Neeley wrote on 03/19/2005 03:01:15 PM:
> I agree, however, that examining applicants should entail more than
> grammar--although I maintain that for a writer the command of basic
> grammar is a basic and essential tool. Calling it "trivial" is much
> like saying that for a carpenter a hammer is "trivial."
Ahh, the beloved carpenter and hammer analogy...
If you're hiring a carpenter, do you give him a box of two-penny nails and
ask them to drive them into a board and then check for how straight they
are?
No. You'd give them a test and evaluate their skills in something more
specific to the job they were being hired for and not a general skill that
you would expect all carpenters to know. More pointedly, if you were
evaluating a professional carpenter, you'd base your decision on a
portfolio of past work and client references and not waste you time or
theirs by testing them. Even if you were hiring a junior carpenter you
wouldn't waste your time testing them. You'd evaluate whether they had
references and basic training or experience then you'd put them to work
under a supervisor for an evaluation period.
Even more ludicrous, IMO, is that the proponents of testing grammar all
seem to also be of the opinion that good writers must have good grammar. I
say ludicrous because if that is true, and I do believe good basic grammar
is a prerequisite to good writing, then testing a good writer simply for
grammar is a waste of time. In other words, if testing writing, If it's
good the grammar is undoubtedly acceptable/good. If it is bad, the state
of the grammar is of no consequence.
Further, the opposite is certainly valid: just because you have good
grammar does not mean you're a good writer (or just because you can swing
a hammer and drive a nail straight, does not mean you're a master cabinet
maker). If you can test for technology and skills AS WELL AS grammar,
great. But if all you're testing for is the identification of misused
affect/effect, you might be hiring a great 3rd grade grammar teacher who's
lousy with technology and missing out on technologically astute candidates
who would be able to polish their writing at leisure after documenting the
much more important technology concepts. Or, perhaps the candidates were
under the impression you were looking for a TECHNICAL writer and were
understandably looking to highlight their TECHNICAL knowledge while taking
the test.
If you advertise you are looking for a writer skilled in understanding
certain systems, technology, and operations, and you give applicants a
test that is based on grammar... Well, all you do is reveal your own
ignorance of the needs of your users (or the role of writers) to the
applicants. You also reveal to them that your workplace may not value
technological and theoretical contributions and will be somewhere where
the contribution of writers will be limited to daily basic writing
drudgery and basic editing.
But all that said, it's incredible that we can go to such great lengths to
pontificate and polarise the topic when we have so little basic
information about the position to be filled, the test contents, how the
test is reviewed, or the rest of the interview process.
This e-mail communication (and any attachment/s) may contain confidential
or privileged information and is intended only for the individual(s) or
entity named above and to others who have been specifically authorized to
receive it. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read,
copy, use or disclose the contents of this communication to others. Please
notify the sender that you have received this e-mail in error by reply
e-mail, and delete the e-mail subsequently.
Thank you.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message (ainsi que le(s) fichier/s), transmis par courriel, peut
contenir des renseignements confidentiels ou protégés et est destiné à
l?usage exclusif du destinataire ci-dessus. Toute autre personne est par
les présentes avisée qu?il est strictement interdit de le diffuser, le
distribuer ou le reproduire. Si vous l?avez reçu par inadvertance,
veuillez nous en aviser et détruire ce message.
Merci.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
WEBWORKS FINALDRAFT - EDIT AND REVIEW, REDEFINED
Accelerate the document lifecycle with full online discussions and unique feedback-management capabilities. Unlimited, efficient reviews for Word
and FrameMaker authors. Live, online demo: http://www.webworks.com/techwr-l
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archiver -at- techwr-l -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Send administrative questions to lisa -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.techwr-l.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.
