Re: Hiring Question

[Phil Gochenour <phil_gochenour -at- earthlink -dot- net>]

I generally find all kinds of testing to be absurd, especially  if  
they're the take-home sort - how can you be certain that they weren't  
prepared by someone else?

I think employers rely far too heavily on "quantitative" methods rather  
than "qualitative" in making hiring decisions. For example, if someone  
has good background experience, excellent references, and writing  
samples, what does having them take a test accomplish? If the goal is  
to hire someone who can perform well on a test, then they're in luck;  
if the goal is to hire someone who does good work, and has done good  
work, and shows promise of doing good work, then what does the test  
demonstrate? Every writer is going to have a particular style, and that  
may come out in the test, but they'll come out in the writing samples  
as well.

The only time I think testing might be useful is in the case of  
copyeditors, and then it's largely a matter of seeing how many  
"mistakes" they can catch in a given document, and if they are familiar  
with basic copyediting marks. But, again, if they've held copyediting  
positions already, and have good references, then what's the point of  
the test? And if they're right out of school, you're going to have to  
train them anyway.

Testing, to me, indicates that the employer is more concerned with your  
performance as a factory worker, someone who can process a certain  
amount of work in a certain amount of time. Testing to me is indicative  
of the employment environment, and generally it indicates one that  
doesn't interest me.

I sometimes think that tests are a way of getting free labor, as in the  
example you gave below.

Phil


On Dec 10, 2005, at 1:28 PM, David Loveless wrote: