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

kind of depends doesn't it?

[ZeroLogic]

What do you mean by techie? As a software developer I've never had a written test or hands on test, but I have had plenty of strong technical interview questions given orally where I'm expected to write code on a whiteboard, or notepad to prove I know what I'm talking about.

That said, I imagine a PC technician would probably have a hands on test to make sure they can demonstrate what they claim they can do.

If you feel you need a written exam to prove a candidates abilities then go for it. But if you think you can recognize talent without it then why not just skip the test and the stress/frustration that comes with it?

Not uncommon!

[damu]

I was given a written exam when I took my job, it was not so much about my computer knowledge, that was an oral and hands on exam. However the written part was about time management, how would I react to different situations, what would I do if 3 different people came to me asking me to do something, etc, etc.
Giving a written exam is completely understandable, and it helps to find out how their writing skills are, something that is extremely important in IT and seems to be such a lacking skill.

dam(U)

Written tests should be required

[TheWanderingHermit]

I used to teach. When I was looking for my first public school contract, I applied to close to 20 school systems. EVERY one required a written essay on the application -- some typed, some handwritten. Later, when I worked in a residential treatment program, they had me sit in a room with my future supervisor and write a few paragraphs on a given topic.

As a teacher, I found that there are MANY people, children and adults who may have good verbal skills, but are completely incapable of using the written word.

Now that I'm running my own business, I would not conceive of hiring ANYONE (except a sanitation engineer) without a written test. They can be offended or not, it's their choice. If they find it demeaning, or offensive that my company requires a written test, they don't have to work for me.

I realize it is the University people, not applicants, who are shocked, but it is necessary to know how someone can express him/herself in writing. I'm sure any college/university administrators are in their own world, where their peers all have a Master's, or Ph.D., so their writing skills have been proven in a thesis. You may want to point out to them that you are not hiring someone in the circles they run in, but someone who will need good writing skills. Without testing an applicant, how will you know if this person can write well?

Another note: at the grad and post grad level, you are in an instutition that deals with a completely different type of education than someone who has had to teach people (from kids to adults) to read and write. I can tell you, from experience, there are MANY people out there who can express themsleves very well verbally, but can't write a coherent paragraph for any reason.

On the far side of this question, my firm is rather unusual, and I will be requiring many creative and technical people, all working together in a strongly interactive and interdependent atmosphere. 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, but I've worked with too many people that claim to be one thing (and may even believe what they say), but are really something different. We want to see what a person is like when they have to work with a group of other people to sovle a problem and cope with stress.

Offended?

[Uma Thurman]

Why was the committee member offended? Because a written test might actually help you find a person who is competent?

I can't imagine why someone who you describe as a "committee member" would be offended at excellence. Committees are a primary component of a beaurocracy, and everyone knows that beaurocracies strive towards excellence.

OK, I'm being silly, but seriously: ONE committe member was offended. There's always ONE of those types around to cause a fuss. Maybe there's some other reason for this. Is there some kind of threat to this person's job or something? Is this person afraid of looking stupid because either they didn't come up with the idea themselves, or they are worried that a "rogue" department might start doing things without their permission? Are you dealing with a control freak?

Colleges big and small are full of politics. Half the time when someone gets their panties in a bunch it has nothing at all to do with getting work done and everything to do with sucking up to a higher level beaurocrat.

Remember the movie "Disclosure?" Work the problem. Perhaps there is some way to find out what the hiring guidelines actually are. Committees run by guidelines. Organizations that have a bunch of committees often have large rulebooks. See if the rulebooks specifically disallow what you are doing. If not, a proper recitation of the rulebook at a committee meeting might shut the critic up.

Re:Offended?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why was the committee member offended? Because a written test might actually help you find a person who is competent?

I'll go out on a limb here and posit a guess as to why the committee member was offended: he or she doesn't write well. Could it possibly be that simple? I certainly wouldn't be surprised.

From my own observations, most people in this country can speak well enough to get a point across, but have difficulty writing a coherent paragraph. Ask the average man on the street a question, or ask him his opinion on a particular issue, and he'll give you a verbal response that's easy to understand. Ask him to give you a written answer instead, and I'd be willing to bet that the response would be so full of grammatical or spelling errors that it would border on incomprehensible. I'm not trying to insult anyone here, I'm just speaking from what I've seen.

There seems to be a trend in America where the focus - at least during formative education - is placed on oral communication as opposed to writing skills. Ask any recent high school graduate how many of his or her teachers took "class participation," a.k.a. answering questions orally, into consideration when computing the students' grades. You'll find that 75% is a lowball figure; nearly every teacher at the high school level (and many at the college level) place a significant amount of grading weight on verbal class participation. You'll also find that those students who don't speak out at all during class are given lower grades, on average, than those who do.

Ask the same students how many of them took a history class, a science class, a math class, or essentially any class other than English where essays were part of the curriculum. Of those who respond affirmitavely, ask whether or not the teachers in those classes took off points for incorrect spelling, grammar, coherence, or structure. You're going to wind up with a number so low that it's embarassing.

Hell, take a look at the average Slashdot post. How many posts have you read where the poster has confused "there" for "their," "its" for "it's," or "of" for "have?" How many times have you seen someone write "taken for granite" instead of "taken for granted?" How many times have you seen someone write the phrase "a whole nother issue" instead of, say, "an entirely different issue?" Now you're getting numbers so high that it's embarassing. If you aren't recognizing these blunders, either you aren't paying attention or you aren't reading much.

These trends carry into the workplace. I've received professional memos from executives which contained most of the above spelling and grammatical errors, sometimes all in one memo. Far too many people are becoming so dependent upon spelling and grammar checkers which purport to turn shitty writing into gold (cough MS WORD cough) that they never take the time to proofread their documents, much less edit them afterwards. Just click the "Auto-Correct" button and everything will be fine...

Getting back to the point, guess what? People who can't write well are intimidated by those who do, just as people who aren't athletic are typically intimidated by those who are. If my department were hiring a programmer and required the hiree to complete a physical obstacle course every week, I'd likely be afraid that the new employee would do better on that test than I could do. And that would make me fear embarassment by a junior employee. Damn right I'd object.

The moral of the story: we need to emphasize writing just as much as, if not more than, we emphasize speaking. The former is the most common method of communication used in the professional arena, and the quality of writing in the workplace is slipping rapidly.

Written tests usually suck.

[gnovos]

I don't mean that the CONCEPT sucks, I mean the implementation usually does. Asking somone to answer trick CS questions ("Ha! Got you Mr. Expert C programmer! You completely overlooked the colon that should be a simi-colon of line 513 on the test! You are such an imposter, get out of this office!") and don't show any real skill at all. Sure the guy who aces the "test" may be a good monkey who can perform the exact same task you average IDE will do cheaper and faster, but that doesn't mean he knows how to properly walk a tree or build an object hierarchy.

If you are going to have a test, ask questions that test a person's ability to think, not a person's ability to remember esoteric factiods about a particular language. Ask open-ended questions with many possible naswers and see how he deal with them... THEN you may actually get an engineer worth the money you are paying for him.

Re:Only Potentially Illegal

[sql*kitten]

"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."

That's very strange - surely it's also "discriminatory" to say that women and minorities aren't as good at test taking as white men? And isn't it strange that they could potentially be worse at test-taking, but not worse at job-doing? A well designed test will be statistically well correlated with job ability. If it's not, then we might as well not bother licensing surgeons!

Do it--you'll regret it otherwise

[Kryianna]

I work for a college as well, and recently hired a technician. We didn't require any sort of tests, but now I wish that we had. While my technician is wonderful working with computers, she can't write worth a darn. As some of the job requirements include making presentations and writing (draft) grant proposals, her failure to write professionally means that I need to redo everything she does before it goes out. With university politics the way they are, we can't get someone new, either. So if you can give them a test--of technical skills, writing skills, or otherwise--do it, otherwise you may have to live with the consequences.

I Think Some People Are Missing the Point

[TheWanderingHermit]

I've responded to this topic earlier, but after reading a number of responses, I think some people are missing the point of written test. When an applicant sits down to take a written test and looks at a question and says, "This is easy, I know this. Why are they wasting my time?" that applicant is probably not aware that the purpose of the test is NOT to test their knowledge. It may seem like a knowledge test, but it isn't. The true purpose of most written tests given in the hiring process is to see if the applicant can write. It is a tool for assessing a person's written expression skills. While some posters are keenly aware of this, it seems that a number of people have missed this.

I know someone will mod this down to troll, since I'm saying something unflattering, but I think it's important to bear in mind why most employeers would give a written test when discussing them.

Where to take offense

[DEBEDb]

How ironic... I have yet to hear about
someone become offended (other than the
candidate) when being subjected to humiliating
practices like drug tests (hand over your
urine, and, please, piss while we watch).
That is fine, of course. But a written test
of skill... oh the horror...