Re: Testing for (in)competence

[Jan Boomsliter <boom -at- CADENCE -dot- COM>]

I was asked only once to write a test piece during an interview.  When
I was left in the room with paper and pencil (I'm not making this up!),
I went to find a phone to call the agent who set up the interview (she
hadn't been informed of any "test"), told her to tell the agency that I
don't write with a pencil, I don't take tests, and that I
wonder if they are assuming that I lie and cheat because that's what
they do.

The agent apologized profusely.

I advise others to never take a "test" that's been cobbled up in-house.
Testing is a science, and you are putting the only thing you have -
your reputation - on the line with something that has no proven
results.


FWIW,
jb
============================
 Unless your test can pass muster with with legal and test experts, you
 may be getting your company into tort city of legal suits now  or
 later. You test/case could pass muster with your legal and test experts and
 still get a big kick in the pants in court if your company and or
 department has a history of being bias against certain groups.

 On Thu, 2 Mar 1995, Geoff Hart wrote:

 >      << Geoffrey Marnell <gmarnell -at- OZEMAIL -dot- COM -dot- AU>
 >      << Suppose that there is no accreditation process to help you select a
 >      << technical writer for a new project. Suppose, too, that you want to
 >      << create a simple test to help you select the best technical writer
 >
 >      Geoff: (Nice name!)
 >         It's interesting to see debate on whether we should be tested for
 >      competence as part of the job interview process. Since I've never been
 >      interviewed without a test (always oral, usually written), I'm
 >      surprised to see that there's any debate on this at all! Nowadays,
 >      with dozens (if you're lucky) or hundreds of applicants for each good
 >      writing job, you've got to come up with some way of eliminating the
 >      "poseurs".
 >         Selecting a good writer isn't as hard as it sounds... or to be more
 >      precise, excluding the bad ones is easier than most of us think. Since
 >      you specified the context of an accounting manual, try this test: Ask
 >      the applicant to document how s/he fills in a deposit slip at the bank
 >      when the deposit comprises cash (rolled coins and bills), money
 >      orders, and cheques, and when there will be a cash withdrawl at the
 >      same time. In your instructions you should hint (but don't specify)
 >      that the depositor should also keep a record to update his/her
 >      bankbook, and if they do so (and add text on balancing the checkbook
 >      records) treat this as a bonus. Anyone who takes more than one page to
 >      document this procedure, or who can't do it _well_ in one page, should
 >      be excluded unless there is some justification for greater length
 >      (e.g., lavish illustration of the text with images of the deposit slip
 >      and detailed explanation of the fields, which would demonstrate the
 >      person is at least somewhat visually literate).
 >         Hope this helps!
 >      --Geoff Hart  #8^{)}  <--- attempt at visual literacy
 >