Written Tests for Interviews?

University Tech asks: "I am a technician at a small private university in the process of hiring a new technician. Everything here is done by committee. One of the committee members was very offended that we were giving the interviewees a written test after we had finished the oral part of the interview. How many of you have had written tests as part of a job interview? I think I have had one at every tech job interview I have ever had (six interviews) and even two hands on tests. Most of my co-workers and friends have as well. Is this perhaps a regional thing or is this normal for us techies?"

Comments

Re:Written tests should be required

[gallen1234]

I've even talked with my laywer about requiring job applicants to go through a ropes course (or other group building exercise) with other applicants as part of the application process. We figure it would be one of the few ways to see if a person REALLY believes in teamwork, or just claims to. It seems (and perhaps is) extreme,

It is extreme. Your company would have to be pretty special for me to be willing to go to that much trouble. Remember, since I already have a job I have to take time off every time I go to meet with you. For two interviews that adds up to two half-days depending on how flexible your interview times are. Add a full day for this ropes course and my current employer is going to start to get suspicious. Not to mention those are vacation days that I'd rather spend with my other team (i.e. my family).

eMailed set of questions

[eMilkshake]

We eMailed our final candidates a series of questions during recent interviews. I'm not sure if this would be included as a test, though.

Our rationale was that we would discuss experience during an interview, but too often during tech interviews, someone would be asked questions such as "What would you do if the system came up with error xxx?" That isn't representative of the work environment.

So, we sent a series of questions, letting the person know they had a few days to work on it and that they should use whatever resources they could. That way, we could more directly test their ability to discover the answers to the problems they would face in the job.

Surprisingly, we often would find out more about the person's personality than their technical skill. Some wouldn't reply. Others grumbled. Others sat down and really researched the questions, answering with their own experience. It seemed in some cases, people would put on a happy face when they put on a suit, but when doing "homework," you got to see their true work attitude. Overall, I thought it was an effective measure of how much they would work on a problem and what skills they had to research a problem.

Re:Only Potentially Illegal

[NearlyHeadless]

Pre-Employment Testing of Applicants [nolo.com]", written tests can be dangerous because "A multiple choice aptitude test may discriminate against minority applicants or female applicants because it really reflects test-taking ability rather than actual job skills."

This is a spoof right ? The point of a selction process *is* to discriminate based on fair objective criteria (test) rather than a unfair subjective criteria (interview).

You would think so, but no. The Supreme Court first recognized a "disparate impact" theory of discrimination back in 1971 with Griggs v. Duke Power and said that an employer can only use a test that minorities pass at a lower rate if it is a "business necessity".

Later, in Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Antonio (1989), the Supreme Court reversed itself, saying that "business necessity" was a huge burden to prove.

Then, with the Civil Rights act of 1991, Congress reinstated the business necessity requirement, but courts have been a little uneven on how to apply the law.

Search on "disparate impact" if you want to see more.