Re: Quantity vs. Quality

["O'Neill, Kate" <kateo -at- CINEBASE -dot- COM>]

I shudder to think of a manager who can't assess a writer's
ability using on-the-spot writing tests for evaluation. If
the manager can't tell what's good or not anyway, what point
is there in evaluating a writing sample, even if it's fresh?

Evaluating writing samples can be tricky business, no doubt,
but I notice when someone does it well. I feel that a manager
can gain one heck of a lot more insight about a candidate in
most cases by asking the right questions about the sample than
s/he can by actually reading it. Most writers have a lot to
say about the projects in which they've been involved, and if
they don't, I want to know why.

Besides, the pressure of interviewing differs significantly
from the pressure I expect a writer to feel during a normal
project. Thus, I wouldn't trust an on-the-spot writing test
to result in a representative sample of the writer's ability.

--
Kate O'Neill
Manager of Documentation, Cinebase Software
kate -at- cinebase -dot- com  http://www.cinebase.com/

-----Original Message-----
From: Pierre Roberge
To: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
Sent: 4/21/99 10:50 AM
Subject: Re: Quantity vs. Quality

You are right.  Experience does not mean much.  Talent means much more.
Managers tend to do that because they cannot assess a technical writer's
ability.  Their only resort is to look at experience and diplomas, etc.
If
the people responsible for hiring knew about technical writing, they
would
ask them to write something on the spot.  IMO that would be a better way
to
evaluate a potential employee.

 From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=