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.
David Loveless asked for opinions on the value of writing and editing
tests in hiring decisions::
<<do tests have value and what value? Are there problems?>>
Ah, one of the most bitter and vituperative arguments in the entire
field of education. I don't suppose that I'll resolve that debate in 15
minutes <g>, but a few thoughts that hopefully won't add too much more
fuel to the flames.
The short version: A well-designed test, which measures what you
actually think you're measuring, clearly has value. The problem is that
few tests are nearly so well-designed as one might hope, witness the
fact that typical students can, with a little training in how to take
the SAT exams rather than actually studying, increase their scores by
ca. 20%. That suggests to me, a recovering scientist and thus a
hopeless quant boy <g>, that the test itself is probably only 80%
effective despite the efforts of a large group of educators to do
better. Similarly criticisms have been leveled for years against IQ
tests.
Writing and editing "tests" are a bit more objective because if you
pick activities that focus on real problems that the candidate will
face in your workplace, the tests at least focus on the skills you
really want to test. But what if the person is just having a bad day?
What if you can't provide truly realistic conditions for them to work
under?
Even these tests miss the point somewhat because they focus on the
ability to take your test rather than purely on the ability to write or
edit. The test environment is generally highly artificial: it requires
you to to use someone else's computer rather than your own customized
version, to work in a foreign and often physically uncomfortable
environment, to work on artificial problems designed to test someone's
theory of what you'll be doing rather than what you'll actually be
doing, and to work without access to your usual resources (a high-speed
Internet connection, shelf of reference books, etc.).
<<I have been subjected to tests that are so insanely long and complex
that I feel like I should have been paid for my time.>>
And why not pay someone to take these tests? In my limited experience
hiring subcontractors, I've found that I could get the best results by
actually hiring the person and putting them to work on a short-term
contract. That gave me enough time to find out how the person would
work out after they got over the initial shock, and let me compensate
them fairly for their time. If they worked out well, I could offer them
a job; if not, not. Plus, there's the whole ethical issue of
compensating people for their time. I'm in favor of that.
<<The tests I administer to my candidates are timed, short, simple, and
(most importantly) done in the comfort of the candidates home instead
of in an unfamiliar office with unfamiliar equipment.>>
I wish everyone were that humane. Good on you, mate!
<<One recent test... would probably have taken me well over 5 hours.
Fortunately, I had the brains to walk out...>>
Also worth doing to make a point. I will no longer "audition" for
editing or translation work because I've been doing the work long
enough that I don't have to. I've got plenty of work, almost entirely
from word of mouth advertising, and can afford to do this. I recognize
how much of a luxury my situation is, but I nonetheless feel that it's
important to stick up for our rights as professionals to whatever
extent we can.
<<On a further note, I find editing tests irrelevant since most, if not
all, editors/writers will not turn in their work blind. They will have
access to spell checkers, dictionaries, and hopefully other
editors/writers.>>
See above. We agree fully on this one. In editing particularly, the
work is an ongoing collaboration with the author until we reach a
mutually satisfactory conclusion. It's never a one-time "edit and move
on" task.
<<would you ever test specific types of software? The answer is an
obvious "duh" for many people, but as one of the wisest men I know
once said, "You can teach anyone to use RoboHelp, DreamWeaver,
whatever. But you can't teach anyone how to write." That being said, we
require DreamWeaver at my current employer...>>
Ah, the dread "should we hire based on tool skills?" debate. <g>
Clearly, the reason why people hire us is because we can write, edit,
translate, or whatever. Any hairless house ape can learn to use
software, but people who are good with words are increasingly rare. So
clearly we should be hiring first and foremost based on writing skills,
right?
Not so fast. Sarcasm aside, I've met my share of hairless house apes
who really have trouble working a computer or mastering the basics of
software. It's not that they're stupid, but rather that their
brilliance (often quite overt) lies in other areas. If you're in a
high-pressure environment where you don't have time to bring someone up
to speed on software, you may not have time to waste on their learning
curve, particularly if there are many equally skilled candidates out
there _who can also use the software_.
But if you have to choose between writing skills and software skills?
Choose the writer every time. If you can find someone who writes
high-quality content at twice the speed of the best writer in your
current group, but does it on a pad of lined legal paper, maybe you can
afford to hire a typist to retype their writing using your preferred
software. <g>
Now Shipping -- WebWorks ePublisher Pro for Word! Easily create online
Help. And online anything else. Redesigned interface with a new
project-based workflow. Try it today! http://www.webworks.com/techwr-l
Doc-To-Help 2005 now has RoboHelp Converter and HTML Source: Author
content and configure Help in MS Word or any HTML editor. No
proprietary editor! *August release. http://www.componentone.com/TECHWRL/DocToHelp2005
